HTTP in the Context of Web Services

RPC mechanism (2864)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

HTTP invokes a procedure remotely (2908)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

URL is RPC "operation name" (2963)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Valid? (2970)

This is what HTTP method is for (2976)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 12, 2002)

Can only be GET or POST (3097)

POST is a special-case of GET.

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Valid? (3165)

GET and POST are different (3171)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 15, 2002), d.hoeppner@tu-bs.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Also PUT and DELETE (3177)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 15, 2002)

RMI mechanism (2884)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

Every object has same interface (2894)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

Enables scaleability (2901)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

Valid? (2922)

Requesting resources based on URL not sufficient for caching (2928)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Specific support for caching had to be built into the protocol (3014)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Using generic headers and generic names (3021)

RPC method names and headers are specific to service.

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

Generic headers could be implemented in RPC infrastructure (3103)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

RPC could be used in infrastructure with caching and firewalls (2935)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Firewall could be used as CORBA client without knowing signature of ops (3028)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Firewall that doesn't understand data passing through it isn't a good firewall (3036)

RPC method names and headers are specific to service.

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

Valid? (3113)

True about HTTP firewalls too (3119)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Examples? (3048)

NFS (3054)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

NFS more like HTTP than RPC (3069)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

Valid? (3130)

Both are RPC applications (3135)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

ILU (3058)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Ability to build efficient protocol on top of RPC doesn't mean RPC scales (3085)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

HTTP widely used because of wide applicability (3149)

Intelligent Net telephone infrastructure, which implements number translation for 1-800 services) is an application of an RPC protocol (X.880).

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

SOAP may not become widely used, but not because it can't scale (3158)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Enables services like Google, Bablefish, Meerkat (3078)

These would not work with XML-RPC, unless there were a standard, higher-level semantic layer.

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

Not all servers implement same protocol (2914)

References: martin@v.loewis.de (Feb 15, 2002)

Procedure names generic across all components (2954)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 12, 2002)

Application built on top of nameless RPC mechanism (3142)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 14, 2002)

HTTP not defined this way (3186)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 15, 2002)

An application protocol (3193)

References: paul@prescod.net (Feb 15, 2002)