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.


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 <jden...@redhat.com>

Looking to carve out IT costs?

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to