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

RE: FW: LC Comments: Web Method Feature

From: Mike Dierken <mike@dataconcert.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:26:37 -0700
Message-ID: <2AE31649CF989F4FB354F6D95EB0CE6E5CEE17@xmlfmail.xmlfund.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Cc: "'Amelia A Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Amelia A Lewis [mailto:alewis@tibco.com] 

> Incidentally, URIs also typically suggest a strongly 
> client-server model, a pull model, and synchronous 
> interactions.  All of those may be good reasons to speculate 
> on how to extend URIs, or what good addressing semantics are 
> for asynchronous, or push, or strongly peer-to-peer models.
I disagree about URIs implying a pull model and synchronous interactions.
The mailto:mike@dataconcert.com URI isn't pull and it isn't synchronous.
Any http based URI support PUT and POST - which are messages pushed to the
The site http://www.topiczero.com/ shows an http/javascript client that
receives messages asynchronously pushed by a server (when it works...).
The somewhat popular Gnutella network - built in part by Gene Kan who
unfortunately passed away recently - uses URIs and HTTP to do its thing.

So, URI are identifiers, how you interact with what they identify - topics,
queues, mailboxes, people, cars, songs, etc. - is a separate issue.

Mike "The Web works both ways" Dierken
Received on Tuesday, 9 July 2002 13:27:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:20 UTC