Fine by me.
I also saw mention of someone wanting to add a .servlet package for servlet
to XMLPRC glue. To whoever wanted to do this, I now have company blessing
and can send you the code we used.
Kevin
On Friday 27 September 2002 13:10, Daniel Rall wrote:
> "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Kevin Hester wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Do ya'll want to add introspection to XML-RPC? It sounds like there
> is not huge amount of interest. I'm fine with that, because it uses
> only the public XML-RPC interfaces I won't have merge hell with
> future releases.
I'm not a fan of this feature. It's not wi
Hi,
Do ya'll want to add introspection to XML-RPC? It sounds like there is not
huge amount of interest. I'm fine with that, because it uses only the public
XML-RPC interfaces I won't have merge hell with future releases.
I have a test client, is there an existing harness I should add it to?
I'm fine with properties, however the _public definitions are handy in one
regard: It is easy to mark methods that should be public inline in your
source file, rather than some sort of external file.
Any other opinions? I'm happy to go either way.
The introspection spec used to be on www.xm
Hi,
Forgive me for being rather ignorant on introspection, but is there any
reason we want to require the XML-RPC server programmer to create public
static fields instead of using properties?
I do not speak for the rest of the list, so I can't answer your question
about whether we want that.
Hi,
I recently needed to add introspection support so a user could use one of the
C++ auto glue generation frameworks. I found an OLD set of patches for this,
but they were very out of date. Instead of using these, I kept the same
usage pattern but made a new implementation based on the curr
