Hello,
I am under the impression that most of the other committers would like
to see a stable 1.2 release before we go into the beta cycle for 2.0.
Therefore I envision probably 6-8 months (judging from the previous
release cycles). That is, unless an interested party gets in here and
shakes
Volkar
(ps: I'm really hating TI's Code Composer Studio right now. )
-Original Message-
From: Ryan Hoegg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 12:42 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: xml-rpc
John,
Your use case, like Rufios and like mine to a lesser exte
John,
Your use case, like Rufios and like mine to a lesser extent, seems to
support
the abstraction of the transport layer. Just as Rufio's particular case
raised
some interesting issues (transporting XML rather than bytes) I'm sure yours
might as well. To what degree have you looked into the
head,
as I think that I'll stick with java and apache XML-RPC on my host hardware.
Thanks,
John Volkar
-Original Message-
From: rufio [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 9:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: xml-rpc
on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:37:26 -0500 "V
rufio wrote:
> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:16:22 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> rufio wrote:
[yet more stuf]
> I mentioned before that plugin should provide it's own Writer.
I don't see that in any message you posted to this thread
Perhaps it was mentioned in the private convers
on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:16:22 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> rufio wrote:
>
> > I don't see your problem. All you have to do is split what changes
> > and what stay constant: generating string containing a XML messge is
> > constant so framework does that;
> > encoding may change
rufio wrote:
> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:22:23 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> rufio wrote:
>>> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:44:01 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
rufio wrote:
[more stuff]
> I don't see your problem. All you have to do is split what changes
on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 08:37:26 -0500 "Volkar, John"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just goes to show, nothing in the world is really new. I'll definitely
> be looking into it. But I'm not using java as the embedded side
> language, rather standard C and some C++ depending on the target
> environments
on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:22:23 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> rufio wrote:
> > on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:44:01 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> rufio wrote:
> [stuf]
>
> You have not addressed the encoding issue.
You are talking about technical issues so I
John Wilson wrote:
> That's why I wrote MinML-RPC (http://www.wilson.co.uk/xml/minmlrpc.htm)
> which is a small footprint XML-RPC implementation which is currently
> being used for industrial process control and is running in Jacuzzis
> and toasters (really!).
Just goes to show, nothing in the
rufio wrote:
> on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:44:01 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> rufio wrote:
[stuf]
You have not addressed the encoding issue. This is really a quite
fundamental problem with what you propose. If the XML generation code
doesn't generate an XML header then it needs
Volkar, John wrote:
> I can give a little insight as to why being able to "break" the spec
> in regards to transport layer is very desirable in some situations.
>
> I work with embedded systems and often times need a messaging or RPC
> style protocol. I don't know how many different times I've had
on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 13:55:16 +0200 "Andrew Evers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You implement XML-RPC only in the default plugin, the rest is just a
> > framework, a code that does common things and if you support
> > different transports, putting the prolog into message isn't common,
> > because
I can give a little insight as to why being able to "break" the spec in
regards to transport layer is very desirable in some situations.
I work with embedded systems and often times need a messaging or RPC style
protocol. I don't know how many different times I've had to reimplement a
fairly low
> > Yes but this isn't XML-RPC and XML-RPC is what the Apache code is
> > supposed to implement.
>
> I thought the whole idea about abstracting the transport layer was
> breaking the spec.
The idea of abstracting the transport layer was to make it easier to work
with custom or different HTTP imple
on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:44:01 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> rufio wrote:
> > You cannot assume that lower protocol doesn't use XML.
>
> Yes you can - that's what the XML-RPC specification says.
Abstraction of transport layer breaks the spec in general, cause we dont
have to us
rufio wrote:
> Hi everyone!
>
> Ryan and I are having little discussion about abstracting the
> transport layer and we think you may want to join us.
>
> I pointed that XmlWriter shouldn't always add the XML prolog.
>
>> We decided to send an entire XML document because we
>> thought creating XML f
Hi everyone!
Ryan and I are having little discussion about abstracting the transport
layer and we think you may want to join us.
I pointed that XmlWriter shouldn't always add the XML prolog.
> We decided to send an entire XML document because we
> thought creating XML from a method name and meth
Daniel, Ryan,
If you send me the text, i can update the site
Thanks,
dims
--- Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ryan Hoegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Hi, we are just about ready to release XML-RPC beta 1, and we need a
> > little more help:
> >
> >
> > 1. We need all files i
Under what conditions?
Both Tomcat and James experience problems like you have described under heavy loads
where garbage collection is not agressive enough to keep up with the rapid creation
and destruction of objects, using the "-server" java option cures that.
It is also possible that -Xnoi
ev Tripathi
>AssetDirections
>PFPC, Inc.
>
>
>
>
>
>Ryan Hoegg
>
>
cc:
Subject: Re: xml-rpc response is not in
xml-rpc format.(secure
09/22/2002 communication)
;
>
>Ryan Hoegg
>
>
> works.net> cc:
Ryan Hoegg
cc:
Subject: Re: xml-rpc r
Hi Sanjeev,
If you are to send the server an XML-RPC request, but expect something
different back (even if it's in XML) you can't use the vanilla Apache
XML-RPC library to do that. However, you may want to use the code from
the library to generate your request and then write your own custom X
Ryan, my apologies for taking so long in responding to your message.
I haven't heard from any of the other committers on this topic, but I
am very much in favor of your proposal. My only concern is that
currently the XML-RPC JAR file is self-contained when used as a client
or in an applet. If yo
> Ok that makes sense. I re-read the specification at
> http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec and it did not mention a default tag type
> (unless I am wrong, which happens once in a while).
The spec says "If no type is indicated, the type is string."
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 22:39, Michael Guymon wrote:
>
> > IIRC, the spec says that you don't have to include ...
> > If there is no type tag after value, it is assumed that it is a string.
>
>
> Ok that makes sense. I re-read the specification at
> http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec and i
> IIRC, the spec says that you don't have to include ...
> If there is no type tag after value, it is assumed that it is a string.
Ok that makes sense. I re-read the specification at
http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec and it did not mention a default tag type
(unless I am wrong, which ha
On Thu, 2002-05-23 at 14:55, Michael Guymon wrote:
> hola,
>
>
> I pulled the latest greatest build from CVS for xml-rpc and built the
> example. Using the package org.apache.xmlrpc.WebServer for the server
> and org.apache.xmlrpc.XmlRpcClient for the client, it worked fine. The
> method call to
There have certainly been SMTP implementations which use the XML-RPC message
format. There's a Jabber protocol which uses the format too
(http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0009.html).
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Ryan Hoegg" <[EMAIL P
I've actually begun exploring this avenue. It is
trivial to separate the wire format from the transport
aspects of the specficiation. Once you've done that
adding support, in the specification, for a new
transport is just a matter of describing how the
transport transfers messages in the XML-RPC w
Ryan Hoegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Am I over-rating the complexity of a Tomcat setup?
Yes. What I'm suggesting is little more than replacing one web server
with another. If you're worried about the size of Tomcat, Jon Stevens
has a stripped down version of Catalina (with no JSP) in Scara
+1 on Dan' suggestion. As has been said many times, the wonderfulness of
xml-rpc is its tight small independence.
-Original Message-
From: Daniel Rall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 8:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: XML-RPC client cookies?
On 2002.03.08 00:46:46 -0700 Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> Am I over-rating the complexity of a Tomcat setup?
>
I haven't set up Tomcat so can't comment on the complexity. If all you
need is a simple Servlet server you might consider some of the others out
there. We've successfully used the TiniHttpSe
Daniel Rall wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Ryan Hoegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hello all,Well, I have made it past authentication with this interesting serviceprovider of mine, and now I have to actually do something useful!Well, it turns out that I need to maintain session state to doan
Ryan Hoegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello all,
>
> Well, I have made it past authentication with this interesting service
> provider of mine, and now I have to actually do something useful!
>
> Well, it turns out that I need to maintain session state to do
> anything. And how else to accompl
I didn't know about that problem.
Fixed in CVS now...
-jon
on 3/7/02 8:53 AM, "Martin Poeschl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
>> Jon cleared this up for us by replacing the infected code.
>
> sure??
>
> the patch is still not applied!
> patched my local version in the meant
Daniel Rall wrote:
> Jon cleared this up for us by replacing the infected code.
sure??
the patch is still not applied!
patched my local version in the meantime ..
martin
>
> Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>Hey Raymond. As soon as we get the Base64 class licensing issue
>>clea
thanx, Kristian
Daniel Rall wrote:
>
> kristian meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > i am quiet new to opensource, etc and i have some small questions.
> >
> > we are going to use the webserver in our new release. for this we need
> > SSL. there is a quite convinient tool for setting up th
kristian meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> i am quiet new to opensource, etc and i have some small questions.
>
> we are going to use the webserver in our new release. for this we need
> SSL. there is a quite convinient tool for setting up the neccassary
> ssl-system-properties, the SecurityTo
On Mon, 2002-02-25 at 10:45, kristian meier wrote:
> Hello,
>
> i am quiet new to opensource, etc and i have some small questions.
>
> we are going to use the webserver in our new release. for this we need
> SSL. there is a quite convinient tool for setting up the neccassary
> ssl-system-proper
Jon cleared this up for us by replacing the infected code.
Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hey Raymond. As soon as we get the Base64 class licensing issue
> cleared up with Kevin Kelley I can commit your changes.
>
> Raymond Penners <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am
43 matches
Mail list logo
