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"
> > <>
> >
> > But I think I've got an even more clear description.  The current
> > wording is:
> >
> >     [Remote procedure] may mean the ability to pass generic
> >     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
> > done are defined by some application that uses the protocol or
> > 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.

I think a distinction has to made between whether a protocol

    a) can *support* applications with a programming model (like for
       example a programming model that leans towards RPC) but
       doesn't itself define one

    b) *itself* defines a programming model that it exports to the

The latter seems much less generic in my mind than the former.

Regarding classification of SOAP, SOAP is not a full-fledged protocol -
it is currently just a protocol framework with the potential for
becoming feature rich. However, the framework does fall into the a)


Received on Monday, 8 May 2000 17:49:27 UTC