On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 11:59:26AM -0700, Mr. Bad wrote:
> AL> XML-RPC triggers my yuck-o-meter. But they're much the same in
> AL> terms of what they do.
> Just to check, Adam: have you actually LOOKED at XML-RPC, or are you
> just speaking out against the general *IDEA* of XML-RPC?
> Because the more I see of XML-RPC, the more I like. You should check
> out the spec (a few pages long at most) and the implementations
> here:
I read the specs page ages ago - and after a quick look it's the same
one I remember.
> Far from being a heinous bear of an umimplementable bloat-spec, like
> for example SOAP, it's a trim little fit-for-use standard,
> well-implemented and used extensively. Eric Raymond, for example, says
> that it's RPC "the Unix way." This is a good recommendation in my
> book.
Example:
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<methodCall>
<methodName>examples.getStateName</methodName>
<params>
<param>
<value><i4>41</i4></value>
</param>
</params>
</methodCall>
That's what I'd call xml for the sake of xml. You just have to say
"Ok, fine. But WHY?".
Another example of the same syndrome (not connected to XMLRPC):
<image x=320
y=200><pixel><red>230</red><green>0</green><blue>120</blue><alpha>255</alpha></pixel><pixel>....
XML is cool in the right place (DocBook for example), but not everywhere.
> The main advantage I see to XML-RPC is that Fred can be talked to by
> the same XML-RPC scripting tools as other programs. The advantage I
> see for FCP is that, well, you haven't signed on to XML-RPC for
> Whiterose yet. B-)
XML-RPC is never going into wrose. I might well write an XML-RPC->FCP
translator in Python thou. (cos I'm a really nice person, kind of)
> Check it out, eh? And see if more information re-calibrates your
> yuckometer.
yuckometer still reading yuck.
AGL
--
This statement is false!
PGP signature
