From: Dan Brickley (Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Mar 16 2000 - 10:43:19 PST
[trimmed Dave from cc: list as he seemed baffled by being there]
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000, Jeff Bone wrote:
> Okay, okay --- Dan's concern is plainly stated enough that the objection begins to take
Plainly stated and over stated. My only objection was with messing up
'GET', not with the broader claim that a more coherent method invokation
architecture can be layered on top of the web-much-as-we-know-it.
That said there's a definite danger of creating a chaotic babel; we're
at risk of death by 1000% DTDs already with document and data
formats. If people start inventing 1000s of new methods on Web objects
too, without well thought through mechanisms for mixing and inheriting
from others' HTTP extensions, it all looks worryingly chaotic. This is
no comment against any of the proposals on the table (SOAP, XML-RPC
etc), more a nod towards the concerns that the HTTP-NG folks were
worrying about a while back...
> shape. if the problem is GET, let me restate my point. I'm *not* suggesting that we
> screw with GET. I was merely pointing out that GET *could* be screwed with, i.e., a
> 1-method HTTP with just GET is sufficient to build a whole RPC infrastructure. GET
> should remain side-effect free, fine. POST, on the other hand, clearly does have side
> effects, and is clearly the appropriate place to hang a generic, over-http-RPC.
> Which is exactly what Dave W. has done.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Mar 16 2000 - 10:45:57 PST