Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Keeping it simple

Author:Dave Winer
Posted:1/31/1999; 6:44:42 AM
Topic:XML-RPC Spec Comments
Msg #:2606 (In response to 2603)
Prev/Next:2605 / 2607

XML-RPC is like HTTP/1.0 -- anyone can understand it, it can be used from all major scripting environments, and we're not even close to seeing the true limitations of the protocol.

That was my argument with the Microsoft folk, and there are people there who GET this, who taught me about it. Further I think you can do a distributed objects system as a layer-above XML-RPC.

Hey, just the fact that there are community-based evangelists for XML-RPC in the Python, Java and Perl communities says it all for me. As I read the sites people are putting up I just want to say YES! That's it. It can be simple, the docs don't have to fill a bookshelf.

I've also started talking more about this on the XML-DEV list. There are a lot of valuable braincells there.

That said, I want to pick off the best ideas that come our way and try to understand what the "distributed objects" applications are about. However, the spec isn't going to change, there will be new levels added over time, for sure, but those won't be the same spec.

However, I think acknowledging namespaces is important and a trivial addition. I think adding a version attribute is also a trivial addition and won't complicate things. How would you feel about addressing those in the 1.0 spec? Call it XML-RPC 1.0.1? I would like to also add a recommendation that people primarily use and values if cross-environment compatibility has a lot of value for their application.

How about this, we freeze the XML-RPC spec, subject to minor clarification, and start a new page with ideas for XML-RPC 2.0. I like the idea of scheduling the 2.0 spec for six months from now. There will be no requirement that you implement it. 1.0 should live for a long long time.

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:47:41 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.