Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard
Timur Shemsedinov wrote: Here question, whether is necessary to have two realizations of the RPC using XML? Again, it's not up to the IETF; XML-RPC already exists. And, in fact, it predates SOAP. -- /===\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com| |Centiv|My opinions are my own. | |===| |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!| \===/
Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-harold-beep-xmlrpc-00.txt There are some questions concerning xmlrpc and some, most probably, even beep. 1. How it can work in local networks if IANA is not accessible and profiles can be received neither from the client nor from the server of such network? Or they are placed locally, if so why URL refers to iana.org ? I believe that it works, but how? It is not clearly documented by BEEP specification and is not considered in mentioned draft. C: start number='1' serverName='stateserver.example.com' C: profile uri='http://iana.org/beep/transient/xmlrpc' C: ![CDATA[bootmsg resource='/NumberToName' /]] C: /profile C: /start 2. Few examples are given in the document, it is difficult to get complete understanding of the complex structured parameters representation. 3. Looking on the following example, any person can have idea, whether it is impossible to represent a call briefly and gracefully even using XML? I: MSG 1 1 . 0 364 I: Content-Type: application/xml I: I: ?xml version=1.0? I: methodCall I: methodNameexamples.getStateName/methodName I: params I: param I: valuei441/i4/value I: /param I: /params I: /methodCall I: END L: RPY 1 1 . 201 100 L: Content-type: application/xml L: L: ?xml version=1.0? L: methodResponse L: params L: param L: valuestringSouth Dakota/string/value L: /param L: /params L: /methodRespose L: END -- Best regards, Timurmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard
Timur Shemsedinov wrote: 1. How it can work in local networks if IANA is not accessible and profiles can be received neither from the client nor from the server of such network? Or they are placed locally, if so why URL refers to iana.org ? It's not used as a URL; it's used as a URI. You don't resolve it; you just use it as an identifier. This is a common tactic in XML. -- /===\ |John Stracke |[EMAIL PROTECTED] | |Principal Engineer|http://www.centivinc.com| |Centiv|My opinions are my own. | |===| |If you're going to walk on thin ice, you might as well *dance*!| \===/
Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard
Timur, my responses to your questions follow: 1. The uri attribute associated with a start message's profile element is equivalent to an XML namespace name. It is a URI that uniquely identifies a BEEP profile; it is just an identifier and does not necessarily point to anything on the Web. 2. The methodCall, methodResponse, and associated parameter encodings are all defined by the XML-RPC specification: http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec. The draft explains how to use BEEP to transfer XML-RPC encoded messages between peers not how to actually do the encoding. 3. Grace and beauty are in the eye of the beholder; regarding brevity it is no doubt possible to define a more compact encoding, even using XML, but in this case the XML-RPC authors defined what they defined. ... WkH Timur Shemsedinov [EMAIL PROTECTED]To: Ward Harold/Austin/IBM@IBMUS pi.kiev.ua cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Last Call: Using XML-RPC in BEEP to Proposed Standard 10/10/2002 12:08 PM Please respond to Timur Shemsedinov http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-harold-beep-xmlrpc-00.txt There are some questions concerning xmlrpc and some, most probably, even beep. 1. How it can work in local networks if IANA is not accessible and profiles can be received neither from the client nor from the server of such network? Or they are placed locally, if so why URL refers to iana.org ? I believe that it works, but how? It is not clearly documented by BEEP specification and is not considered in mentioned draft. C: start number='1' serverName='stateserver.example.com' C: profile uri='http://iana.org/beep/transient/xmlrpc' C: ![CDATA[bootmsg resource='/NumberToName' /]] C: /profile C: /start 2. Few examples are given in the document, it is difficult to get complete understanding of the complex structured parameters representation. 3. Looking on the following example, any person can have idea, whether it is impossible to represent a call briefly and gracefully even using XML? I: MSG 1 1 . 0 364 I: Content-Type: application/xml I: I: ?xml version=1.0? I: methodCall I: methodNameexamples.getStateName/methodName I: params I: param I: valuei441/i4/value I: /param I: /params I: /methodCall I: END L: RPY 1 1 . 201 100 L: Content-type: application/xml L: L: ?xml version=1.0? L: methodResponse L: params L: param L: valuestringSouth Dakota/string/value L: /param L: /params L: /methodRespose L: END -- Best regards, Timurmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
