- From: Anders W. Tell <anderst@toolsmiths.se>
- Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 20:11:35 +0200
- To: dick@8760.com
- CC: Dave Winer <dave@userland.com>, "Wesley M. Felter" <wesf@cs.utexas.edu>, Edd Dumbill <edd@usefulinc.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Dick Brooks wrote:
> Anders Tell wrote:
>
> >IMHO should formats as JPEG not be part of a RPC because RPC is
> interprocess invokation of remote functionality.
>
> I can easily imagine an RPC within a medical imaging system such as:
>
> RESULT StoreImage( INTEGER PatientID, DATETIME ImageDateTime, JPEG
> BlobOfImageData);
Sure , this a valid use case,but I would not design a RPC standard where all
implementors
where required to know the formats of JPG,GIC, PNG etc.
These types of datatype should be handled at the level above the protocol.
In Corba and thefore in XIOP the above use case may be implemented as ...
struct JPEHG{
string mimetype;
sequence<octet> data;
};
or
valuetype Image {
string mimetype;
sequence<octet> data;
};
valuetype JPEG :truncatable Image {
};
>
> >This begs the question, what should the scope be for an Internet RPC/OO
> standard?
>
> I believe the question is much broader than RPC/OO, I thing the question is:
>
> What is needed to support the various processing modes people are likely to
> use in E-Commerce interactions?
Yes, this is an interesting question. Im not sure we need new communication
paradigms (request-reply, publish-subscribe,queuing. etc) in order support
E-business use cases.
/anders
--
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
/ Financial Toolsmiths AB /
/ Anders W. Tell /
/ WWW: <http://www.toolsmiths.se> /
/ XIOP: <http://xiop.sourceforge.net> /
/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Received on Monday, 15 May 2000 14:10:32 UTC