W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2001

Re: RPC -- is it a module. One last try.

From: marwan sabbouh <ms@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 12:57:47 -0500
Message-ID: <3AB79A1B.D6D8673A@mitre.org>
To: Ray Whitmer <rayw@netscape.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
i view RPC as a module as well, as per my earlier email:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Mar/0017.html

we need to close this issue.  comments please?
marwan

Ray Whitmer wrote:
> 
> RPC -- is it a module.  One last try.
> We had a thread going.  Do we need a tighter discussion, such as perhaps
> a phone call today or tomorrow to clarify where we are?  I have asked
> before and recall no response to the suggestion for a phone call.
> 
> The definition of "module" or "processor" fluctuate day to day, but as I
> implement I continue to see RPC as a module, which exists on client and
> server ends to map the programming environment and language onto the
> SOAP model.
> 
> The client and server method within the programming environment may also
> be seen as applications, but the client may be unaware of SOAP, and the
> server is hardly a SOAP handler.  They are simply interacting with
> method invocation within the programming environment.  The SOAP handler
> is the RPC interpreter which decodes objects and interprets the meaning
> of the method name inside.  That a specific URL may permit a specific
> set of RPC calls does not change that RPC is the target, which is
> interpreting the message and selecting from a set of available non-SOAP
> services to dispatch to, based upon method name.  That seems rather
> simple to me.
> 
> Once we know that, then, are modules permitted to add fault codes such
> as the additional conditions that may be encountered by RPC?  How?
> 
> Ray Whitmer
> rayw@netscape.com
Received on Tuesday, 20 March 2001 12:57:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:59 GMT