Path: utzoo!yunexus!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!bellcore!messy!mo
From: mo@messy.bellcore.com (Michael O'Dell)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.nfs
Subject: Re: "just RPCs"
Message-ID: <23682@bellcore.bellcore.com>
Date: 29 May 90 16:07:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: bellcore.23682
References: <1990May24.034258.13625@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <3378@auspex.auspex.com> <1990May24.205149.6065@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <3385@auspex.auspex.com> <1990May25.234950.1465@Neon.Stanford.EDU>
Sender: news@bellcore.bellcore.com
Reply-To: mo@messy.UUCP (Michael O'Dell)
Organization: Center for Chaotic Repeatabilty
Lines: 24

Yes indeed, they are "just RPCs", at one level, but they are EXTENSIBLE!

No general RPC system I have heard of has the ability to add new
functions on the fly - in fact, most are lauded for the ability
to strongly-type interfaces and generate stubs for statically-
linked code. 

The important point is that now the decision about the level of complexity
of service interface need by a client from a server is now a decision
which can be made by that CLIENT with precious little interference by
the server.  Different clients are free to make that decision in different
ways! Further, pursuing the goal of "action at a distance," instead
of "remote-izing local operations" is, in my view, mandatory for the
future, and I, for one, am convinced that the traditional, non-dynamic
RPC model isn't adequate for either experimentation or
operational realities.  

We all learned somewhere along the way the "the later the binding the
better, as long as you can afford it."

I argue that what NeFS proposes takes this to new limits (extremes?)
and the prospects are fascinating.

	-Mike