ws-xmlrpc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jochen Wiedmann <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: RFC: Release Plan 2.0
Date Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:13:47 GMT
Christoph Theis wrote:

> Why is java.util.prefs.Base64 not public? :(

No idea. The difference being, that I see a use case for the Base64
class, but not for the ServerInputStream. :-)


> I need it because I have to write my own XmlRpcTransport class
> to add a cookie to the requests.

That should much more easy to be done using one of the existing classes,
isn't it?


> LiteXmlRpcTransport:
> If we could add additional headers to requests I could use the
> LiteXmlRpcTransport class.
> And a nice feature would be if the constructor would setup
> authorization info from the URL argument.
> 
> At the moment I could live with my class (almost copied from
> LiteXmlRpcTransport) but I want to avoid to copy ServerInputStream
> too, just because it is not public.

I see access to the headers as a very reasonable desire. In other words,
I'd be ready to discuss and possibly apply patches in that direction, if
no one else intervenes. I see no sense, though, in making the
ServerInputStram public.


> The spec does not allow for void methods. So the default is to throw
> an exception if the method is void.

In that case, I suggest to defer that to 3.0, where at least I plan to
add a lot of extensions to the SPEC. (The default always being compliant
to the SPEC, of course.)


> The original spec allowed ASCII characters only for strings. The word "ASCII"
> ws removed 2003. XmlWriter still checks for the range 0x20 ... 0xff
> and not for the range allowed by the XML spec. There had been a lot of
> discussion over this the last years and as far as I know Apaches
> (our) xmlrpc still clings to ASCII characters. But might be I'm wrong ...

If XMLWriter does check for 0x20 to 0xff, it does the wrong thing
anyways, because ASCII is 7 bit only. In other words, I'd be +1 for
opening this. Again, if this would be in violation of the SPEC, then I'd
be +1 for deferring it to 3.0.


Jochen

Mime
View raw message