[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Modified Files:
xmlrpclib.py
Log Message:
accept datetime.datetime instances when marshalling;
dateTime.iso8601 elements still unmarshal into xmlrpclib.DateTime objects
Index: xmlrpclib.py
...
+if datetime and isinstance(value, datetime.datetime):
+
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:09, Tim Peters wrote:
Fred, is there a reason to avoid datetime.datetime's .isoformat()
method here? Like so:
Yes. The XML-RPC spec is quite vague. It claims that the dates are in ISO
8601 format, but doesn't say anything more about it. The example shows a
[Tim]
Fred, is there a reason to avoid datetime.datetime's .isoformat()
method here? Like so:
Yes. The XML-RPC spec is quite vague. It claims that the dates are in ISO
8601 format, but doesn't say anything more about it. The example shows a
string without hyphens (but with colons), so I
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:44, Tim Peters wrote:
Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have
a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink.
Hmm, that's right (ISO 8601:2000, section 5.4.2). Sigh.
dt.replace(microsecond=0).isoformat()
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:44, Tim Peters wrote:
Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have
a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink.
I've posted a note on the XML-RPC list about this. There doesn't seem to be
anything that describes the
On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:32:14 -0500, Fred L. Drake, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Thursday 10 February 2005 14:44, Tim Peters wrote:
Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have
a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink.
I've posted a note on
[Tim]
Well, then since that isn't ISO 8601 format, it would be nice to have
a comment explaining why it's claiming to be anyway 0.5 wink.
[Fred]
Hmm, that's right (ISO 8601:2000, section 5.4.2). Sigh.
Ain't your fault. I didn't remember that I had seen the XML-RPC spec
before, in
