Return to Question

After watching this talk on REST, Reuse and Serendipity by Steve Vinoski, I wonder if there are business cases in greenfield projects for (XML-)RPC-ish setups, that REST could not solve in a better way.

A few RPC-Problems he mentions:

• Focus on language (fit the distributed system to the language, not the other way around)
• "Make it look local" (and cope with failure and latency as exceptions rather than the rule)
• intended to be language-independent, but still has "function calls" across languages as main ingredient
• IDL boilerplate
• Illusion of type safety
• and a few more ...

Just to dramatize it a bit, some Google Instant result for RPC vs REST:

After watching this talk on REST, Reuse and Serendipity by Steve Vinoski, I wonder if there are business cases in greenfield projects for (XML-)RPC-ish setups, that REST could not solve in a better way.

A few RPC-Problems he mentions:

• Focus on language (fit the distributed system to the language, not the other way around)
• "Make it look local" (and cope with failure and latency as exceptions rather than the rule)
• intended to be language-independent, but still has "function calls" across languages as main ingredient
• IDL boilerplate
• Illusion of type safety
• and a few more ...

Just to dramatize it a bit, some Google Instant results for RPC vs REST:

After watching this talk on REST, Reuse and Serendipity by Steve Vinoski, I wonder if there are business cases in greenfield projects for (XML-)RPC-ish setups, that REST could not solve in a better way.

A few RPC-Problems he mentions:

• Focus on language (fit the distributed system to the language, not the other way around)
• "Make it look local" (and cope with failure and latency as exceptions rather than the rule)
• intended to be language-independent, but still has "function calls" across languages as main ingredient
• IDL boilerplate
• Illusion of type safety
• and a few more ...

Just to dramatize it a bit, some Google Instant result for RPC vs REST:

After watching this talk on REST, Reuse and Serendipity by Steve Vinoski, I wonder if there are business cases in greenfield projects for (XML-)RPC-ish setups, that REST could not solve in a better way.

A few RPC-Problems he mentions:

• Focus on language (fit the distributed system to the language, not the other way around)
• "Make it look local" (and cope with failure and latency as exceptions rather than the rule)
• intended to be language-independent, but still has "function calls" across languages as main ingredient
• IDL boilerplate
• Illusion of type safety
• and a few more ...

Just to dramatize it a bit, some Google Instant result for RPC vs REST:

After watching this talk on REST, Reuse and Serendipity by Steve Vinoski, I wonder if there are business cases in a greenfield projects for (XML-)RPC-ish setups, that REST could not solve in a better way.

A few RPC-Problems he mentions:

• Focus on language (fit the distributed system to the language, not the other way around)
• "Make it look local" (and cope with failure and latency as exceptions rather than the rule)
• intended to be language-independent, but still has "function calls" across languages as main ingredient
• IDL boilerplate
• Illusion of type safety
• and a few more ...

Just to dramatize it a bit, some Google Instant result for RPC vs REST:

After watching this talk on REST, Reuse and Serendipity by Steve Vinoski, I wonder if there are business cases in greenfield projects for (XML-)RPC-ish setups, that REST could not solve in a better way.

A few RPC-Problems he mentions:

• Focus on language (fit the distributed system to the language, not the other way around)
• "Make it look local" (and cope with failure and latency as exceptions rather than the rule)
• intended to be language-independent, but still has "function calls" across languages as main ingredient
• IDL boilerplate
• Illusion of type safety
• and a few more ...

Just to dramatize it a bit, some Google Instant result for RPC vs REST: