- From: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
- Date: 23 Apr 2000 09:40:54 -0500
- To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Earlier I wrote a possible clarification for the "remote procedure" facet,
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Mar/0072.html>
But I think I've got an even more clear description. The current
wording is:
[Remote procedure] may mean the ability to pass generic procedures
and have the other side have some mechanism for giving a
best-guess response, or it may mean that there is a way to have
the other side do something for you, ie. protocol.
Most of the protocols have some way to "have the other side do
something for you". The distinction is in whether those things to be
done are defined by some application that uses the protocol or defined
in the protocol itself. Another distinction is whether the protocol
explicitly supprts remote procedures or is just a carrier protocol.
"Remote procedure" should only apply to the former.
Here's a possible rewording:
The protocol explicitly supports sending requests to a remote
system to execute a designated function, method, or procedure
defined by an application using the protocol rather than functions
defined in or by the protocol itself.
This is specifically intended not to try to distinguish messaging from
RPC (if there is a difference), only whether functions are defined by
the protocol or by applications using the protocol.
Spec Remote procedure
------------------ --------------
BizTalk no
ebXML can't tell from the doc linked on the matrix
eCo can't tell from the doc linked on the matrix
ICE no
IOTP *no
Jabber no
LDO yes
LOTP yes
SOAP *yes
Userland's XML-RPC *yes
WDDX no
Wf-XML *no
XMI *yes
XMOP can't tell from the doc linked on the matrix
XP no
Those marked (*) would change on the matrix if the above definition is
used.
-- Ken
Received on Sunday, 23 April 2000 10:36:54 UTC