Re: 2nd try: clarification for "remote procedure" facet

On Sun, Apr 23, 2000 at 09:40:54AM -0500, Ken MacLeod wrote:
> Earlier I wrote a possible clarification for the "remote procedure" facet,
> <>
> 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.

done - with the later caveat of:

  Spec                 Remote procedure                                         
  ------------------   --------------                                           
  XMI                  no                                                       


Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 16:41:00 UTC