Re: WG:RPC

This sounds good. I've been thinking there's three kinds of modules:

* Those that supply generic, 'pluggable' services, like encryption,
  authentication, etc. These can be used in any message, they're not
  transport- or application-specific.

* Those that are application toolkits, to standardize common
  functions, like RPC. These might bring requirements in terms of
  transport or message correlation requirements, and will only be
  used for certain applications.

* Those that are applications. Not sure of an example here.


Does this make sense?



On Tue, Mar 06, 2001 at 09:35:58AM -0500, marwan sabbouh wrote:
> first, I m in agreement with the layerd architecture
> you propose.
> 
> >what's on
> >top of the XP layer?  Is it another layer, with a
> >bunch of modules, one 
> >of whichis RPC, and on top of that, there's the
> >application?    Or does the application
> sit on top of the XP layer?
> 
> In the case of RPC, I have to say that the application
> sits on top of the RPC module. The app. calls methods
> implemented by the RPC module.  The rpc module calls
> method implemented by the XP layer. Below is an
> examination of an XMLP RPC implementation:
> 
> The XP client or app. does the following to call a
> remote mehod:
> 1-Create an XP transport Binding
> 2-Serialize the message according to the set of RPC
> convention for XP and RPC
> 3-Attach the message to the transport Binding
> 4- send the message
> 5-wait for the reply
> 
> The XP app. sits on top of the XP listener and uses
> the RPC module. The apps interacts with the RPC module
> who uses XP objects.
> 
> 1-The XP binding listener receive the requestand hands
> off the request to the rpc module
> 2- The RPC module deserialize the message using the
> set of conventions defined by XP
> 3- the RPC module unmarshal method names and params
> accoeding to xp conventions
> 4-call the method implemented by the application
> 5-serialize the reply using the set of conventions
> defined by XP
> 
> 6-return to the XP listener
> 7- Listener sends reply to the client
> 
> 
> comments please?
> marwan
> --- Ray Denenberg <rden@loc.gov> wrote:
> > marwan sabbouh wrote:
> > 
> > > we were asked to look into how RPC fit into the
> > XMLP
> > > architecture. Is  Rpc a module? or Is it an
> > > application that sits on top of XMLP?  --
> > 
> > This is difficult without some layered architecture
> > to refer to. Can we
> > informally designate some of the layers we're
> > talking about, just for a frame of
> > reference?
> > 
> > Let's say there's an XP layer. Just below it is,
> > let's say, the "message
> > transfer" layer, which may be http or beep. Below
> > that is the transport layer.
> > 
> > If we can accept that for sake of discussion, my
> > question would be, what's on
> > top of the XP layer?  Is it another layer, with a
> > bunch of modules, one of which
> > is RPC, and on top of that, there's the application?
> >    Or does the application
> > sit on top of the XP layer?
> > 
> > --Ray
> > 
> > 
> > Ray Denenberg
> > Library of Congress
> > rden@loc.gov
> > 202-707-5795
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> 

-- 
Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)

Received on Wednesday, 7 March 2001 22:14:51 UTC