- From: Anders W. Tell <anderst@toolsmiths.se>
- Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 15:18:55 +0200
- To: "Wesley M. Felter" <wesf@cs.utexas.edu>
- CC: Edd Dumbill <edd@usefulinc.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
"Wesley M. Felter" wrote: > On Fri, 12 May 2000, Edd Dumbill wrote: > > > Although you point out that data transfer protocols have the opportunity > > of avoiding lock-in, I'm not sure it's an API vs data transfer thing. > > I can't see that it's any more difficult to obfuscate a data format than > > an API. > > I don't see obfuscation as being the problem. I'm more concerned about RPC > interfaces which are fully published, but can't map onto other > implementations than the initial one. Consider an interface that requires > every object to be manipulated to have some unique numeric ID; a system > that doesn't assign numeric IDs to its objects is going to need massive > kludges to implement such an interface. This a major differentiator between protocols, the concept of instance/state vs pure RPC/stateless. There is also another issue lurking here and that is how the instance id's should be extressed and transferred. IMO there doesnt exist any *super* protocol which can handle all protocol use cases so its back to basics again: let the requirements and use cases determine which protocol characteristics are needed. /anders -- /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ / Financial Toolsmiths AB / / Anders W. Tell / / WWW: <http:www.toolsmiths.se> / / XIOP: <http://xiop.sourceforge.net> / /_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Received on Saturday, 13 May 2000 09:17:40 UTC