[FoRK] Open Link: Objects+piping (and better)+real loose coupling
Tue Oct 4 09:23:18 PDT 2005
On Mon, Oct 03, 2005 at 04:52:11PM -0400, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> You can force a lot over the HTTP model, but if you look at the design
> of BEEP (in the RFCs) you'll see quite a difference.
Yes, BEEP is indeed very different than HTTP. 8-) Sorry, I don't get
> That's just some transport details however, the next level up is more
> interesting. SOAP et al is interesting, but unfortunately was jumped on
> as RPC, especially half-duplex synchronous RPC with, initially, all
> kinds of overhead per field rather than just exchanging an arbitrary XML
> message (i.e. "document mode"). (The standard allows for async, but...)
> Anyway, now I think we're talking about two things. The one thread is
> about lightweight scripting / linking a la Unix shell pipelining. The
> appropriate protocols and practices for the web are related, but still
> could be different.
I'm not sure. I hear you talking about things that seem, to me, to fit
very well into the Web model.
> In any case, with your FoRK reference, one of the early invitation
> triggers was presence/instant messaging which is definitely not a model
> that's efficient over HTTP. Presence/IM is all about message routing,
> asynchronous pipelined messages, publish/subscribe, etc. Sure, many are
> deep into HTTP also, but HTTP was and is flawed as a general purpose
> model. It has evolved toward that direction, but there is a gap.
Such as? Not to suggest there isn't, just trying to understand your
requirements that would make HTTP unsuitable.
More information about the FoRK