Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Request–response

The request–response model, also known as the request/reply paradigm, is a fundamental communication pattern in and distributed systems wherein a client sends a request to a , which processes the request and returns a corresponding response , typically in a synchronous manner where the client awaits the reply. This interaction establishes a direct, one-to-one correlation between the initiating request and the server's reply, enabling structured data exchange and task execution across networked environments. Central to client-server architectures, the model promotes modularity by organizing functionality into distinct components with well-defined responsibilities, where the client handles input formulation and the server manages processing and output generation. It underpins key protocols and mechanisms, such as Remote Procedure Calls (RPC) for invoking distant functions as if local, object invocations like Remote Method Invocation (RMI), and device interfaces including SCSI. In web technologies, it manifests prominently in the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), a stateless application-level protocol that facilitates extensible, self-descriptive message exchanges for hypertext information systems. The paradigm's design emphasizes reliability, though it can introduce in scenarios requiring immediate replies, contrasting with asynchronous alternatives like publish-subscribe models. Widely applied in layers to abstract platform complexities, it supports diverse use cases from —such as banking inquiries where a client requests an account balance and receives a monetary reply—to broader distributed services like DNS resolution and protocols including NFS and AFS.

Fundamentals

Definition

The request–response model is a core communication in and distributed systems, wherein a client sends a request to a , which processes the request and returns a corresponding response. This interaction forms the basis of the client-server architecture, enabling structured exchanges between networked components. Unlike asynchronous models, the request–response approach is typically synchronous, with the client often blocking or waiting until the response is received, ensuring direct acknowledgment and coordination between parties. The workflow of the model proceeds through distinct phases: the client initiates the request by generating and transmitting it via a ; the receives the request, performs necessary processing—such as or —and then generates the response; finally, the response is transmitted back to the client for handling. This sequence promotes reliability in scenarios requiring immediate feedback, though it may limit parallelism compared to non-blocking alternatives.

Key Characteristics

The request-response model can be implemented in a stateless manner, where each request from the client is treated independently by the , with no retention of information from previous interactions unless is explicitly maintained through session mechanisms. This can simplify server-side logic and horizontal scaling, as any instance can handle requests without prior context. In distributed environments, stateless implementations enhance reliability by reducing dependencies on specific s. The model typically operates in a synchronous manner, where the client initiates a request and waits until the processes it and returns a response, establishing a direct between the two actions. This can introduce inefficiencies in high-latency networks, as the client remains idle during processing, but it simplifies programming by providing immediate . Unlike asynchronous paradigms, the synchronous nature enforces a linear flow, making it suitable for operations requiring immediate results, such as database queries or resource retrievals. Error handling in the request-response model generally relies on mechanisms within the response to indicate outcomes, such as codes or exceptions, allowing clients to interpret and respond appropriately. Timeouts are managed by clients abandoning requests after a predefined period without response, often triggering retries for idempotent operations to avoid duplicate processing. These features ensure robust recovery in distributed systems. implications arise from the model's ability to distribute requests across multiple servers via load balancers, leveraging stateless designs to prevent bottlenecks on single instances. This horizontal scaling accommodates growing loads by adding servers that process requests in parallel, with intermediaries like proxies potentially caching responses to reduce repeated computations. In distributed systems, such characteristics enable efficient handling of high volumes, as each request's isolation minimizes coordination overhead. Security aspects involve authentication to verify the client's identity, often embedded in requests, and authorization to determine access rights during processing. Common approaches include credential-based verification, paired with error responses for denied access, and use of secure channels to protect data in transit. This integration ensures security checks are part of each exchange, mitigating risks in untrusted networks.

Historical Development

Origins in Early Computing

The request-response paradigm in traces its conceptual roots to the theoretical models of developed in the mid-20th century, particularly Alan Turing's description of the as a sequential device that processes inputs through a series of deterministic state transitions to produce outputs. This model emphasized a linear flow of operations—reading symbols, applying rules, and writing results—which inherently mirrored the structure of submitting a query or task and awaiting a computed reply, influencing later practical systems by establishing as an input-output sequence without inherent concurrency. Early computers, constrained by limitations, embodied this sequential ethos, treating user or program instructions as discrete inputs that triggered step-by-step processing to generate responses, laying the groundwork for more structured interaction patterns. In the and , systems represented the first practical embodiment of request-response dynamics in isolated environments, where —essentially requests comprising programs and —were collected on like punch cards or and processed sequentially by the operating system to produce output responses. These systems, such as IBM's IBSYS for the 7090/7094 computers introduced around , automated the handling of multiple in offline batches, minimizing manual intervention while ensuring each submitted job received a corresponding result, often printed or stored for later retrieval. IBM's OS/360, released in 1966 for the System/360 mainframe family, advanced this approach with (JCL) statements that defined job parameters, allowing users to submit requests via card decks or remote entry, after which the system queued, executed, and returned responses like printed reports or datasets. This batch-oriented workflow optimized resource use in expensive mainframes, treating each job submission as a self-contained request-response , though delays in processing could span hours or days. The shift toward interactive computing in the 1960s introduced more immediate request-response interactions through command-line interfaces on terminals connected to mainframes, where user inputs served as real-time requests eliciting prompt system responses. Teleprinter-based terminals, repurposed from communication devices like teletypewriters, became standard by the early 1960s, allowing operators to enter commands directly and receive echoed outputs or error messages, evolving from batch submission to conversational exchanges. Systems like MIT's Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS) in 1961 demonstrated this by supporting multiple users via terminals, processing each command as a request and returning results almost instantaneously, thus bridging sequential batch processing with human-machine dialogue. A pivotal milestone occurred in with demonstrations, which extended request-response principles to rudimentary remote access across linked computers, enabling users to submit requests from one host and receive interactive responses from another. On October 29, , researchers at UCLA transmitted the initial characters of "" to a computer over the nascent , marking the first successful packet-switched remote interaction where a request traversed the network to elicit a response, foreshadowing paradigms. This experiment, involving four initial nodes, highlighted terminal access to remote resources as a core application, with each connection functioning as a request for computational services yielding confirmatory or operational responses.

Evolution in Networking

The request-response model began to take shape in networked environments during the 1970s with the development of the TCP/IP protocol suite, which introduced mechanisms for reliable data delivery essential to request-response interactions. In their seminal 1974 paper, Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn proposed a protocol for interconnecting packet-switching networks, where the Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) component ensured reliability through sequence numbering and positive acknowledgments, allowing a sender to confirm receipt of data packets before proceeding with further transmission. This acknowledgment-based approach addressed the unreliability of early packet networks like ARPANET, enabling structured request-response exchanges by retransmitting lost packets until acknowledged, thus laying the foundation for dependable communication over heterogeneous networks. TCP/IP's adoption by the U.S. Department of Defense in the late 1970s further solidified these principles, transitioning from the connectionless NCP to a layered architecture that supported request-response at the transport level. By the 1980s, the request-response paradigm was standardized in application-layer protocols, adapting TCP/IP's reliability for specific networked services. The (SMTP), defined in 821 in 1982, exemplified this by structuring email delivery as a series of client-initiated commands (requests) met with server responses indicating success, failure, or data forwarding. SMTP's turn-based dialogue—where the client issues commands like HELO or MAIL FROM, and the server replies with status codes—ensured reliable message relay across the nascent , influencing subsequent protocols. Similarly, the (FTP), standardized in 959 in 1985, formalized request-response for file operations, with clients sending commands such as RETR (retrieve) or STOR (store) and servers responding with transfer confirmations or error codes over separate control and data connections. These protocols marked a shift from ad-hoc networking to interoperable standards, promoting the model's use in distributed systems beyond military applications. The 1990s saw the request-response model integrate deeply with the emerging , where HTTP/1.0 provided a lightweight framework for hypermedia retrieval. Published as RFC 1945 in May 1996, HTTP/1.0 defined core methods like GET for requesting resources and for submitting data, paired with numeric status codes (e.g., 200 OK or 404 Not Found) in responses to convey outcomes. This specification built on earlier informal HTTP drafts from 1991–1995, standardizing stateless, text-based exchanges over to support scalable web browsing, with each request-response cycle fetching documents or images independently. The protocol's simplicity facilitated rapid adoption, enabling the Web's growth from academic tool to global platform by emphasizing idempotent requests and clear response semantics. Enhancements in the 2000s and early addressed HTTP/1.x limitations in , culminating in 's multiplexing capabilities. Development of , influenced by Google's protocol experiments starting in 2009, aimed to reduce in request-response flows over congested networks. Standardized as 7540 in May 2015, introduced binary framing and multiplexing, allowing multiple concurrent requests and responses over a single connection without blocking, thus improving throughput for resource-heavy web applications. This evolution preserved the core request-response structure while optimizing it for modern bandwidth demands, with features like header compression further minimizing overhead in repeated exchanges. Subsequent advancements continued with , standardized as 9114 in June 2022, which maps HTTP semantics onto the transport protocol—a UDP-based alternative to designed for faster connection establishment and better performance in lossy networks. Influenced by ongoing efforts to mitigate and support connection migration (e.g., for mobile devices), maintains the request-response model through stream-based , where each request-response pair operates on an independent stream, enabling unaffected streams to proceed despite on others. This iteration enhances reliability and reduces latency for web applications while retaining compatibility with prior HTTP features like server push, marking the current state of the protocol's evolution as of 2025.

Applications in Networking and Web

Client-Server Model

In the client-server model, the request-response paradigm structures communication between two primary roles: the client, which acts as the requester, and the , which serves as the responder. The client, such as a or mobile application, initiates requests for resources or services over a , while the , typically a powerful system like a , processes these requests, accesses necessary data or logic, and returns responses to the client. This division allows clients to focus on and interaction, delegating complex processing to the for efficiency. The communication flow in this model is bidirectional yet asymmetric, with clients sending outbound requests and servers providing inbound responses, often using standardized protocols to ensure . This request-response cycle enables multi-user access and resource sharing, as multiple clients can simultaneously interact with a single without direct coordination. For instance, a client might request a or computation result, and the handles , retrieval, and delivery in response, supporting scalable distributed systems. The model often incorporates , where each request is independent, allowing servers to handle varying loads without retaining session-specific . Key advantages of the client-server model include centralized , which simplifies and by consolidating resources on the , and enhanced through techniques like server replication or load balancing to accommodate growing client demands. This architecture promotes efficient resource utilization across networked environments, reducing data duplication and enabling remote access for distributed users. However, challenges arise from the server's role as a , where can disrupt all connected clients, and network in wide-area settings, which delays response times and impacts performance. Variants of the client-server model differ in how processing responsibilities are delegated between client and server, notably thin and thick clients. Thin clients minimize local processing and storage, relying heavily on the server for computation and data handling, which lowers hardware costs and eases centralized updates but increases network dependency and vulnerability to . In contrast, thick clients perform substantial local processing and , sending fewer requests to the server and enabling offline functionality, though this raises and resource demands on the . These variants adapt the request-response flow to balance , , and in diverse applications.

HTTP and RESTful Services

In the context of web technologies, the request-response paradigm is fundamentally embodied by the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP), which operates within a client-server model where clients initiate requests to servers for , and servers respond accordingly. HTTP defines a set of standard methods that specify the desired action on a identified by a (URI). For instance, the GET method retrieves a representation of the target without modifying it, making it safe and idempotent for repeated use. Similarly, submits data to be processed by the target , often resulting in the creation of a new , while PUT replaces the entire state of the target with the provided payload, and DELETE removes the target or its association. Each HTTP request elicits a response from the , including a status code that indicates the outcome, such as 200 OK for successful processing or 404 Not Found when the requested cannot be located. Representational State Transfer (REST) builds upon HTTP as a lightweight for designing networked applications, emphasizing stateless interactions between clients and servers. Core REST principles include identifying resources via URIs and performing stateless operations on them, where each request from the client contains all necessary information, independent of prior interactions, to ensure scalability and reliability. REST leverages standard HTTP methods as the transport mechanism for these operations, treating resources as the central elements manipulated through representations like JSON or XML. This approach promotes a uniform interface, enabling intermediaries such as caches to optimize performance without deep knowledge of the application semantics. HTTP responses in RESTful services typically include a payload in formats such as for structured data interchange or XML for more verbose representations, specified via the Content-Type header. Additional response headers provide metadata, including caching directives like , which instruct clients and intermediaries on storage and freshness validation to reduce latency and usage. For example, a header indicates the response remains fresh for one hour, allowing subsequent identical requests to be served from . The evolution of web services reflects a shift from the Simple Object Access Protocol (), which relied on XML-based messaging envelopes for structured requests over various transports, to RESTful APIs that prioritize HTTP simplicity and resource-oriented design. SOAP, formalized as a W3C recommendation, enforced rigorous XML schemas and stateful operations, often leading to heavier payloads and complexity in distributed systems. In contrast, REST's adoption, as outlined in its foundational architecture, favored lightweight, cacheable HTTP interactions, driving widespread use in modern APIs for their ease of implementation and scalability. This transition has simplified integration in web applications, reducing overhead while maintaining robust request-response semantics. A practical illustration of HTTP's request-response mechanism occurs when a web browser sends a GET request to a server's URI, such as https://example.com/page, prompting the server to return a 200 OK response containing an HTML document that the browser renders for display.

Implementations in Programming

Remote Procedure Calls

Remote Procedure Call (RPC) is a that enables a program on one computer to execute a or subroutine on a remote computer as if it were a local call, abstracting the underlying network communication details. In this model, the client marshals the procedure's parameters into a request message, transmits it over the network, and the unmarshals the parameters to invoke the procedure, subsequently marshaling and returning the results in a response message. This synchronous request-response mechanism hides the complexities of , such as data and transport, allowing developers to focus on application logic. Key protocols have shaped RPC implementations. ONC RPC, developed by Sun Microsystems in the early 1980s, was one of the first widely adopted systems, relying on the External Data Representation (XDR) standard for platform-independent serialization of request and response data. XDR encodes data in a canonical big-endian format to ensure interoperability across heterogeneous systems. In contrast, gRPC, introduced by Google in 2015 and open-sourced under the Apache License 2.0 (initially under BSD), leverages HTTP/2 for efficient multiplexing and bidirectional streaming, paired with Protocol Buffers (Protobuf) for compact binary serialization of structured data, enabling high-performance RPCs in modern distributed environments. Central to RPC systems is stub generation, where an interface definition language (IDL) specifies the procedures, and a automatically generates client and stubs. The client stub packages (marshals) arguments into the request format, sends it to the , and unpacks the response upon return, while the stub performs the inverse: unmarshaling incoming requests, dispatching to the actual , and marshaling results for the reply. This automation ensures , as the calling code interacts with the stub identically to a local function call. Tools like rpcgen for ONC RPC or the protoc for facilitate this process, producing stubs in languages such as C, , or Go. RPC systems incorporate mechanisms to manage network failures, such as timeouts, lost packets, or crashes, often by propagating as exceptions or error codes in the response. For instance, if a remote call times out or the is unreachable, the client raises a synchronous exception, allowing the application to handle retries, fallbacks, or graceful degradation without manual network checking. Protocols like support deadlines and cancellation to prevent indefinite hangs, while ONC RPC uses simple reply statuses to indicate failures, enabling robust propagation in distributed applications. In practice, RPC excels in use cases involving architectures, where services need to synchronously invoke procedures on remote peers for tasks like or validation. For example, in a cloud-native , one microservice might use to request checks from an identity service, benefiting from low-latency, type-safe communication without exposing internal implementation details. This approach scales well for inter-service coordination in high-throughput systems, such as platforms or content delivery networks, where direct procedural calls maintain tight while leveraging efficient protocols for performance.

API Design Patterns

In modern application programming interfaces (), the request-response paradigm underpins various that enhance flexibility, reliability, and for distributed systems. These patterns leverage the core mechanics of a client sending a structured request to a , which processes it and returns a tailored response, often over HTTP. By standardizing interactions, such patterns facilitate integration between services while addressing challenges like data specificity, resource protection, and . GraphQL exemplifies a request-response pattern optimized for complex , employing a single endpoint where clients submit declarative queries specifying exact fields needed, and the server responds with a object containing only those fields, reducing over-fetching and under-fetching common in traditional APIs. This approach allows for nested queries and within a single request, enabling efficient, client-driven shaping without multiple round trips. The GraphQL specification formalizes this by requiring responses to include a top-level "data" key for successful queries and an "errors" array for any issues, ensuring predictable handling of partial failures. Webhooks introduce a hybrid element to the request-response model, where a client initially registers a callback via a standard request to the , which then initiates unsolicited HTTP responses to that upon detecting relevant events, blending push notifications with the underlying request-driven registration. This pattern shifts from pure polling to event-triggered updates, minimizing and while maintaining the request-response foundation for setup and delivery. Although server-initiated, webhooks rely on HTTP for reliable delivery, often including idempotency keys in payloads to handle retries safely. Rate limiting enforces quotas on incoming requests through server-side responses, typically returning HTTP 429 (Too Many Requests) status codes with headers like Retry-After to signal when clients can resume, thereby preventing overload and ensuring fair in high-traffic APIs. Common algorithms include or , where servers track request counts per client (e.g., via or API keys) over fixed windows, such as 100 requests per minute, allowing bursts while sustaining steady rates. This is crucial for maintaining service , as seen in platforms like , which caps REST API usage at 5,000 requests per hour for authenticated users. API versioning via request headers, such as Accept-Version or a custom X-API-Version, allows clients to specify desired versions explicitly, enabling servers to route requests and craft responses compatible with that version without altering URIs. For instance, a header value like "1.0" might trigger legacy field mappings in the response, supporting gradual evolution while preserving existing integrations. This method promotes clean URL structures and , contrasting with URI-based versioning by version logic from resource paths. Best practices in request-response APIs emphasize idempotency, where requests like HTTP PUT or DELETE produce identical outcomes on retries—e.g., using unique idempotency keys in POST bodies to deduplicate actions such as payments—preventing unintended side effects from network failures. Additionally, consistent response schemas, often enveloped in a standard wrapper with fields for data, errors, and metadata, streamline client parsing and error handling across endpoints. These practices, including links for discoverability, foster robust, evolvable APIs akin to RESTful services but applicable broadly.

Comparisons with Other Paradigms

Versus Publish-Subscribe

The publish-subscribe (pub-sub) messaging paradigm involves publishers disseminating messages to designated topics or channels, from which subscribers receive copies of those messages without initiating direct requests to the publishers. This model employs a to intermediate, allowing publishers to remain unaware of the number or identity of subscribers, thereby promoting in distributed systems. In contrast to the request-response paradigm, which operates on a point-to-point basis where a client sends a specific request and awaits a targeted reply from a , pub-sub enables many-to-many communication that is inherently asynchronous. Request-response interactions are typically synchronous, blocking the requester until a response arrives, whereas pub-sub decouples the timing of message production and consumption, allowing publishers to continue operations without waiting for acknowledgments. This difference in topology—direct pairing versus broadcast dissemination—fundamentally affects and in networked applications. Request-response suits scenarios requiring immediate, query-based interactions, such as a client performing a database lookup to retrieve data on demand. Conversely, pub-sub excels in broadcast notifications where timeliness of delivery outweighs the need for direct querying, like real-time stock price updates pushed to multiple financial applications subscribed to a topic. These divergent use cases highlight how request-response prioritizes precise, on-demand exchanges, while pub-sub facilitates efficient event dissemination to varied consumers without polling overhead. Hybrid approaches often combine the paradigms, such as using a to initiate a pub-sub subscription—for instance, a client call to subscribe to a topic, after which ongoing updates flow asynchronously via pub-sub. This integration leverages the immediacy of request-response for setup while harnessing pub-sub's for sustained communication. Request-response provides assured immediate feedback and simplifies error handling through direct correlation of requests and replies, but it tightly couples communicating entities, potentially creating bottlenecks in high-load scenarios. Pub-sub, by producers and consumers, enhances and to failures—such as subscriber without impacting publishers—but introduces potential delays in delivery and challenges in guaranteeing message ordering or exactly-once semantics without additional broker features. These trade-offs guide paradigm selection based on requirements for responsiveness versus flexibility in distributed environments.

Versus Event-Driven Architectures

In event-driven architectures, components react to events—such as user actions or system changes—without requiring explicit requests from initiators, enabling asynchronous processing where producers publish events to channels and consumers subscribe to respond independently. This contrasts with the request-response , which mandates a synchronous by a client followed by a blocking wait for the server's reply, ensuring direct but potentially latency-bound interactions. Event-driven systems employ mechanisms like callbacks, message queues, or event streams to facilitate non-blocking flows, allowing continuous operation even during I/O operations, whereas request-response relies on point-to-point connections that tie resources until completion. A key distinction lies in their handling of concurrency and scalability: event-driven architectures excel in high-throughput environments by decoupling components, permitting independent scaling of producers and consumers, as exemplified by the event loop, which processes multiple requests on a single thread without blocking, achieving superior performance under load compared to traditional request-response models that often require multi-threading and face thread-per-request overhead. Request-response, however, remains preferable for transactional scenarios demanding immediate and atomicity, such as database queries, where its synchronous nature provides reliable, traceable outcomes without the variability of event ordering. In modern ecosystems, request-response patterns often integrate with event-driven systems for , where synchronous calls handle external interactions—like API gateways coordinating with event brokers—while leveraging the latter's for internal asynchronous processing, thus combining the strengths of both for . This integration allows event-driven cores to buffer and distribute workloads, with request-response serving as a synchronous overlay for user-facing or third-party endpoints. One limitation of event-driven architectures is the increased in , stemming from indirect, asynchronous flows that obscure and , making it challenging to errors across components—unlike the linear, request-traceable chains in request-response systems. Such indirection can lead to anomalies like race conditions or lost events, complicating and fault isolation in distributed settings.

References

  1. [1]
    Overview of Request/Response Communication - Oracle Help Center
    In request/response communication mode, one software module sends a request to a second software module and waits for a response.
  2. [2]
    [PDF] Introduction to Distributed Systems - Duke Computer Science
    We have to “get it right”! Page 10. Services request/response paradigm ==> client/server model examples: Remote Procedure Call (RPC) object invocation, e.g. ...
  3. [3]
    [PDF] Lecture 16: Principles of System Design - Stanford University
    Request/response is a way to organize functionality into modules that have a clear set of responsibilities. We've already had some experience with the ...
  4. [4]
    RFC 9112 - HTTP/1.1 - IETF Datatracker
    Introduction. The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a stateless application-level request/response protocol that uses extensible semantics and self ...<|separator|>
  5. [5]
    [PDF] On the Analysis of Request-Response Communication in a Token ...
    The objective of this paper is to construct a model of a system using request-response communication, to point out the difficulties related to an exact analysis ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] 2 On Distributed Systems
    RPC platforms, DOC middleware, and component middleware are all based on a request/response communication model, where requests flow from client to server and ...
  7. [7]
    [PDF] Distributed Computing Systems
    ○ Client/server computing allocates application processing between the client and server processes. ○ Request-response paradigm. ○ A typical application ...
  8. [8]
    RFC 9110 - HTTP Semantics
    The Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) is a family of stateless, application-level, request/response protocols that share a generic interface, extensible ...
  9. [9]
    Middleware 101 - ACM Queue
    Mar 15, 2022 · It is typically used synchronously, because it needs to receive a response from a server object to address a client action.
  10. [10]
    Turing machines - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Sep 24, 2018 · Turing machines, first described by Alan Turing in Turing 1936–7, are simple abstract computational devices intended to help investigate the extent and ...
  11. [11]
    CS322: Operating Systems History - Gordon College
    A batch system is one in which jobs are bundled together with the instructions necessary to allow them to be processed without intervention.
  12. [12]
    Big Ideas in the History of Operating Systems - Paul Krzyzanowski
    Aug 26, 2025 · Batch Processing Systems (Late 1950s-1960s). Batch processing systems like IBM's IBSYS and FORTRAN Monitor System revolutionized computer ...
  13. [13]
    [PDF] IBM OS/360: An Overview of the First General Purpose Mainframe
    The OS/360 was a step up from strict batch-mode operating systems. With a more robust notion of what a “job” is, the OS is able to advance from batch.Missing: 1950s 1960s
  14. [14]
    [PDF] IBM System/360 Operating System: Job Control Language Reference
    Every job submitted for execution by the operating system must include job control language statements. These statements contain information required by the ...
  15. [15]
    Networking & The Web | Timeline of Computer History
    By the early 1960s many people can share a single computer, using terminals (often repurposed teleprinters) to log in over phone lines. These timesharing ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] The ARPANET after Twenty Years
    Sep 20, 1989 · The ARPANET began operation in 1969 with four nodes as an experiment in resource sharing among computers. It has evolved into a worldwide.
  17. [17]
    LO and behold: the Internet turns 50
    Oct 24, 2019 · On October 29, 1969, researchers at UCLA tried to transmit the word LOGIN to a computer 314 miles away at Stanford.
  18. [18]
    RFC 1945 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol -- HTTP/1.0 - IETF Datatracker
    ... request/response chain. There are three common forms of intermediary: proxy, gateway, and tunnel. A proxy is a forwarding agent, receiving requests for a ...
  19. [19]
    RFC 7540 - Hypertext Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)
    HTTP Request/Response Exchange ............................52 8.1.1 ... Multiplexing of requests is achieved by having each HTTP request/ response exchange ...
  20. [20]
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc9114
  21. [21]
    (PDF) Architectural Review of Client-Server Models - ResearchGate
    Jan 30, 2024 · Client-server architecture is a distributed systems architecture where one or more client computers request resources from a server computer ...
  22. [22]
    (PDF) Client-Server Model - ResearchGate
    Aug 7, 2025 · This paper will provide information about client-server model in terms of its introduction, architecture, recent development and issues.
  23. [23]
    Client-server computing architecture: an efficient paradigm for ...
    Here, the authors present the various advantages and disadvantages followed by applications of client-server computing models.
  24. [24]
    Client/Server model
    In this scheme client applications request services from a server process. This implies an asymmetry in establishing communication between the client and server ...
  25. [25]
    Distributed Systems: Thin and Thick Clients - Baeldung
    Mar 18, 2024 · In this tutorial, we'll review the differences between thin and thick clients, their benefits and drawbacks, and reasons for their significance in distributed ...Missing: authoritative sources
  26. [26]
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.1
  27. [27]
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.3
  28. [28]
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.4
  29. [29]
    https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7231#section-4.3.5
  30. [30]
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#section-15.3.1
  31. [31]
    https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9110.html#section-15.5.5
  32. [32]
    https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_3
  33. [33]
    https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_2_1_1
  34. [34]
    https://www.ics.uci.edu/~fielding/pubs/dissertation/rest_arch_style.htm#sec_5_1_5
  35. [35]
    https://httpwg.org/specs/rfc9111.html#cache-control
  36. [36]
    SOAP Version 1.2 Part 1: Messaging Framework (Second Edition)
    Apr 27, 2007 · SOAP Version 1.2 is a lightweight protocol intended for exchanging structured information in a decentralized, distributed environment.
  37. [37]
    CHAPTER 5: Representational State Transfer (REST)
    This chapter introduces and elaborates the Representational State Transfer (REST) architectural style for distributed hypermedia systems.
  38. [38]
    What is Remote Procedure Call (RPC)? | Definition from TechTarget
    May 13, 2024 · A Remote Procedure Call (RPC) is a software communication protocol that one program uses to request a service from another program located on a different ...
  39. [39]
    Remote Procedure Call (RPC) in Operating System - GeeksforGeeks
    Oct 25, 2025 · Remote Procedure Call (RPC) is a way for a program to run a function on another computer in a network as if it were local.
  40. [40]
    ONC Remote Procedure Call (oncrpc) - IETF Datatracker
    ONC RPC is a Remote Procedure Call technology that originated in Sun Microsystems in the early 1980s. ONC RPC was modelled on Xerox's Courier RPC protocols.Missing: serialization | Show results with:serialization
  41. [41]
    RPC: Remote Procedure Call Protocol Specification Version 2
    This document specifies version two of the message protocol used in ONC Remote Procedure Call (RPC). The message protocol is specified with the eXternal Data ...Missing: serialization | Show results with:serialization
  42. [42]
    Introducing gRPC, a new open source HTTP/2 RPC Framework
    Feb 26, 2015 · We are open sourcing gRPC, a brand new framework for handling remote procedure calls. It's BSD licensed, based on the recently finalized HTTP/2 standard.
  43. [43]
    What Is gRPC? | IBM
    Protocol Buffers. Protocol Buffers, commonly known as Protobuf, is a cross-platform data format developed by Google that is used to serialize structured data.<|separator|>
  44. [44]
    Stub Generation in Distributed System - GeeksforGeeks
    Mar 18, 2024 · A stub is a piece of code that translates parameters sent between the client and server during a remote procedure call in distributed computing.
  45. [45]
    Generating the Stub Files - Win32 apps - Microsoft Learn
    Aug 23, 2019 · After defining the client/server interface, you usually develop your client and server source files. Next use a single makefile to generate ...
  46. [46]
    https://www.tutorialspoint.com/exception-handling-in-distributed-system
  47. [47]
    Exception Handling in Distributed System - Tutorials Point
    Sep 27, 2023 · Synchronous exceptions occur when a process makes a remote procedure call (RPC) to another process and call fails. This can happen if remote ...
  48. [48]
    What is gRPC? Use Cases and Benefits - Kong Inc.
    Apr 26, 2024 · As mentioned above, gRPC uses HTTP/2 for transport and Protocol Buffers for message serialization. The client creates local objects or stubs ...How Does Grpc Work? · Grpc Api Service Methods · Why Use Grpc?
  49. [49]
    Rethinking RPC Communication for Microservices-based Applications
    Jun 6, 2025 · We propose delayering the RPC communication stack and tightly coupling the end host and in-network processing using high-level abstractions.
  50. [50]
    Best practices for RESTful web API design - Azure - Microsoft Learn
    May 8, 2025 · The HTTP GET, POST, PUT, PATCH, and DELETE methods already imply the verbal action. Use plural nouns to name collection URIs. In general, it ...Web API Implementation · Data partitioning guidance · Autoscaling
  51. [51]
    GraphQL Specification
    GraphQL generates a response from a request via execution. A request for execution consists of a few pieces of information: The schema to use, typically ...
  52. [52]
    Queries - GraphQL
    Nov 1, 2025 · The GraphQL specification indicates that a request's result will be returned on a top-level data key in the response. If the request raised any ...Missing: pattern | Show results with:pattern
  53. [53]
    Response - GraphQL
    Nov 1, 2025 · After a GraphQL document has been validated and executed, the server will return a response to the requesting client.Missing: pattern | Show results with:pattern
  54. [54]
    What is a webhook? - Red Hat
    Feb 1, 2024 · A webhook is a lightweight, event-driven communication that automatically sends data between applications via HTTP.
  55. [55]
    Webhooks vs APIs: How They Work Together in Modern Systems
    May 28, 2025 · Webhooks are ideal when your application needs to respond instantly to external events. They reduce server load, eliminate unnecessary API ...
  56. [56]
    Rate limiting best practices - WAF - Cloudflare Docs
    Sep 22, 2025 · Rate limiting best practices · Enforce granular access control to resources. · Protect against credential stuffing and account takeover attacks.
  57. [57]
    Rate limits for the REST API - GitHub Docs
    No more than 900 points per minute are allowed for REST API endpoints, and no more than 2,000 points per minute are allowed for the GraphQL API endpoint. For ...
  58. [58]
    Versions in Azure API Management | Microsoft Learn
    Jun 1, 2025 · When the header versioning scheme is used, the version identifier needs to be included in an HTTP request header for any API requests. You can ...Versioning schemes · Original versions
  59. [59]
    REST API Versioning: How to Version a REST API?
    Dec 26, 2024 · 2.2. Versioning using Custom Request Header. A custom header (e.g. Accept-version) allows you to preserve your URIs between versions though it ...
  60. [60]
    Idempotency - What is an Idempotent REST API? - REST API Tutorial
    Nov 5, 2023 · A REST API is called idempotent when making multiple identical requests to an API has the same effect as making a single request.
  61. [61]
    Idempotent requests | Stripe API Reference
    When creating or updating an object, use an idempotency key. Then, if a connection error occurs, you can safely repeat the request without risk of creating a ...
  62. [62]
    Responses Best Practices in REST API Design - Speakeasy
    Sep 16, 2025 · Creating clear, consistent API responses is crucial for building usable APIs. This guide covers essential patterns and best practices for API responses.
  63. [63]
    Publish-Subscribe Channel - Enterprise Integration Patterns
    Read the entire pattern in the book Enterprise Integration Patterns. Example: Google Cloud Pub/SubNEW · Google Cloud Pub/Sub offers both Competing Consumers ...
  64. [64]
    Publish-subscribe pattern - AWS Prescriptive Guidance
    The publish-subscribe pattern enables asynchronous messaging to decouple the publisher and subscribers. Publishers can also send messages without the knowledge ...
  65. [65]
    Request-Reply - Enterprise Integration Patterns
    ... or a Publish-Subscribe Channel. ... Other portions are protected by copyright. Enterprise Integration Patterns book cover · Enterprise Integration Patterns
  66. [66]
    Variations on the request-response messaging pattern
    Aug 16, 2024 · Learn how the request-response messaging pattern can be extended further and combined with the publish/subscribe messaging pattern.Destinations For Messages · Topic-Based Request-Response... · Topic-Queue Hybrid...<|separator|>
  67. [67]
    Publisher-Subscriber pattern - Azure Architecture Center
    If a specific subscriber needs to send acknowledgment or communicate status back to the publisher, consider using the Request/Reply Pattern.Missing: trade- | Show results with:trade-
  68. [68]
    Interservice communication in microservices - Azure - Microsoft Learn
    There are tradeoffs to each pattern. Request/response is a well-understood paradigm, so designing an API might feel more natural than designing a messaging ...Missing: trade- | Show results with:trade-
  69. [69]
    Event-Driven Architecture Style - Microsoft Learn
    Aug 14, 2025 · In an event-driven architecture, synchronous communication can be achieved by using request-response messaging.Missing: comparison | Show results with:comparison
  70. [70]
    What Is Event-Driven Architecture? - IBM
    Event-driven architecture models​​ Overall, they replace the traditional “request/response” architecture, where one app must request specific information from ...
  71. [71]
    Integrating Event-Driven and Request-Response Microservices
    As powerful as event-driven microservice patterns are, they cannot serve all of the business needs of an organization. Request-response endpoints provide the ...
  72. [72]
    Don't Block the Event Loop (or the Worker Pool) - Node.js
    In summary, the Event Loop executes the JavaScript callbacks registered for events, and is also responsible for fulfilling non-blocking asynchronous requests ...Missing: comparison | Show results with:comparison
  73. [73]
    Detecting event anomalies in event-based systems
    Event anomalies can lead to unreliable, error-prone, and hard to debug behavior in an event-based system. To detect these anomalies, this paper presents a new ...Missing: challenges | Show results with:challenges