- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 10:29:09 -0500
- To: jacek@systinet.com
- Cc: Tim Ewald <tjewald@develop.com>, "'XMLDISTAPP'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jacket Kopecky writes: >> Therefore I vote yes on 2 - decoupling RPC from >> the graph data model It's interesting to ask what's left of RPC when we do this. We've already separated out request/response as an exchange pattern, so we've got that. By leaving out the data model, we're eliminating any fixed notion of how arguments are results are modeled, except to say that they are XML. The only thing I can think of that's left is to indicate that the QName of the immediate child of <Body> is the key to dispatching the service to be performed (keep in mind that our default rules for handling bodies are now looser than that.) What else would be left of RPC in your proposal (I'm neither endorsing nor disagreeing with it, just asking for clarification). Thanks. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 12:40:20 UTC