On 03/26/2010 07:24 AM, Jason Gerard DeRose wrote:
This quick patch changes the XML-RPC signature to match the
complementary change being made in certmonger.
The signature is now:
[args, options]
This doesn't yet include the [args, options, extra] change... that is
coming in my rpcserver patch once it's done. But this provides what
needed for current IPA<=> certmonger compatibility.
NAK
Is there a reason for the type inconsistency? Why is it a list in one
case and a tuple in the other? I realize they'll both operate the same
way but the inconsistency is confusing especially if there is no reason
to use different type objects (e.g. no need for a mutable sequence).
--
John Dennis <[email protected]>
Looking to carve out IT costs?
www.redhat.com/carveoutcosts/
_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel
