-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
If you have some time I'd much appreciate you going over my XMLRPC
implementation to see if it measures up
I'm making the assumption (probably a good one) that the problem
is on my end...
Jim: It's not a problem... just confusion brought on by a lack of
explanation. That outer array is the array of params... you can
safely ignore it.
To make things clearer, I added a second CFDUMP that displays
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 10:50 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
I'm making the assumption (probably a good one) that the problem
is on my end...
Jim: It's
Mostly because I'd never heard of it until you mentioned it. Where have you
been for the past two weeks while I've been ranting about not having
something like this. ;^)
Jim: I only skim the list, in general. I'm surprised I didn't notice
the conversation, though... I have watchlists set up
But
although the system does seem to be well supported it also seems to be
poorly documented. ;^)
Jim: That's a matter of perspective. Some people love Dave Winer's
approach to spec-writing, and some people absolutely *loathe* it. I'm
gonna guess you're in the latter group. :D
-
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 22, 2005 12:56 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
But
although the system does seem to be well supported it also seems to be
poorly documented
Jim: Any reason not to go with the prior art and just use (or extend,
if necessary) XML-RPC?
XML-RPC parsers are everywhere, so it's pretty much the no-brainer
default option for passing around programmatic data. In fact, that was
one of the big points made when Jeremy Allaire and I were
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
Jim: Any reason not to go with the prior art and just use (or extend,
if necessary) XML-RPC?
Mostly because
-Original Message-
From: Roger B. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 10:04 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
Jim: Any reason not to go with the prior art and just use (or extend,
if necessary) XML-RPC?
XML-RPC
Well - it looks like dataML is already taken for something else anyway...
anybody got a good idea for a new name?
I'm thinking either simple as in dpml (Depressed Press Markup Language)
which says absolutely NOTHING about what it does or esoteric like Rosetta.
Whatcha think?
I know this is
at this point...
- Calvin
-Original Message-
From: Jim Davis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 2:09 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
[Sorry - I posted this in CFCommunity already but all the action seems to be
over here...]
I've
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why not dpxl, seeing as it's not a markup language so much as a data
transfer language that happens to an XML application?
Jim Davis wrote:
+) Something that's easy to parse for JavaScript. SOAP is NOT easy to
parse (which is, I think, why there's
At 02:33 AM 8/18/2005, you wrote:
Well - it looks like dataML is already taken for something else anyway...
anybody got a good idea for a new name?
I'm thinking either simple as in dpml (Depressed Press Markup Language)
which says absolutely NOTHING about what it does or esoteric like Rosetta.
Well - it looks like dataML is already taken for
something else anyway...
anybody got a good idea for a new name?
I'm thinking either simple as in dpml (Depressed Press
Markup Language)
which says absolutely NOTHING about what it does or
esoteric like Rosetta.
Whatcha think?
I know
XIEF (XML Information Exchange Format)
-Original Message-
From: S. Isaac Dealey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 10:33 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
Well - it looks like dataML is already taken for something else
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:57 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Why not dpxl, seeing as it's not a markup language so
-Original Message-
From: Calvin Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 7:32 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
Interesting ideas and it seems like a good direction.
The use of the word object seems to trip me up
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Davis wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not quite true. The data typing in JSON is implicit. Of the types listed
below it can unambiguously represent object, array, null, string,
string, boolean, and
-Original Message-
From: Keith Gaughan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:37 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: WDDX Replacement Attempt (was RE: Ajax and CFCs)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Davis wrote:
-Original Message-
From
19 matches
Mail list logo
