- 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