Mark Baker wrote: > > > On 4/4/07, Gregg Wonderly <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:gergg%40cox.net>> wrote: > > My question is still why is the RMI (programming model) INVOKE > operation not a > > restful operation? > > Didn't my response to you on Mar 28 not answer that question to your > satisfaction? Steve seemed to get it, even if he didn't agree with > the implications.
You said: > Ok, well it seems clear that you're using different terminology than > the rest of us in this conversation, as we see operation and method as > the same thing. But to put things in your terms, the uniform > interface constraint would mean that every service offered the same > set of *methods*. > > Does that help? I replied: So are you drawing the line there to force it to be different or because it actually is different. I'd argue that if HTTP is "the appplication protocol" then "RMI is the application protocol". Thus if GET, PUT, DELETE, POST are the HTTP operations, then RMI's INVOKE is the operation, and it is uniform in the same way. How come you would consider that to not be the case? For any particular RMI client to talk to an RMI server, it is that INVOKE protocol that is at the root of their ability to interact. It is the HTTP protocol's implementation that is the uniformity that allows web clients to talk to web servers. So, it seems to me that you're considering RMI's invocation protocol to be at the same layer that TCP is for HTTPs implementation. My argument is that this is not the case. RMI is the application protocol. The methods invoked are the resources being used. Help me understand why I can't see it the way you are pressing for it to be understood. Gregg Wonderly
