[FoRK] Open Link: Objects+piping (and better)+real loose coupling

Mark Baker distobj
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
your point.

> 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...)

Yup.

> 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.

Mark.



More information about the FoRK mailing list