Daniel Rall wrote: > > josh lucas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Daniel Rall wrote: > > > > >> "Rick Johnston" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > >> > I guess this is one of the problems of working with a frozen > >> > standard. The rest of the world doesn't necessarily care whether > >> > people can use that standard. > >> > >> Yeah, I may end up forking away from the standard myself. > > > My only word of caution on the possible forking away from the standard > > is that you have to be careful not to break backwards compatability. > > Many people are using xml-rpc in a variety of languages and for the > > 'main' Java implementation to break things would be very bad. > > > > Obviously the plan isn't to break things but I just wanted to throw this > > out there. > > Right -- that the XML-RPC specifiction is frozen is a huge mistake. > AFAIK, an HTTP/1.1 server is fully backwards compatible with HTTP/1.0, > and offers many enhancments that would be directly applicable to any > data tunnelled through it (such as XML-RPC). It makes zero sense to > not support these enhancements when support can be added without > breaking backwards compatibility. The server should speak 1.1 to > clients that announce support for it, and 1.0 for clients that do not. >
yup. I'm totally +1 on backwards-compatible enhancements. josh
