W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

RE: Issue 133, and permitting no body

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2002 14:49:44 -0700
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E40267507C@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 4:14 PM
> To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
> Cc: mnot@mnot.net; xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 133, and permitting no body
> 
> Actually, this isn't a REST specific argument at all.  Every 
> application
> protocol exists to coordinate the tasks necessary for that 
> application.
> Each one accomplishes this by limiting the agreement that is made over
> the network, because agreement between uncoordinated actors is *HARD*
> and takes lots of time thrashing about in standards 
> organizations.  HTTP
> just happens to be able to do a lot more than other application
> protocols.  Perhaps that's why it's confused for being a transport
> protocol so often?

Hmmm ... I hate to dive into shark-infested waters, but I thought of SOAP as
the application coordination protocol and HTTP just one of the transports.
HTTP itself is much more than a transport protocol, but the SOAP RPC binding
is only using it as a way to transport messages.  One COULD use SOAP-format
messages in a REST-way -- using GET, PUT, POST as appropriate, but that's
not RPC ???

Swimming fast for shore ...

 
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 16:50:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT