eep-alive? If you are sending well formed XML you can
tell when the response has ended without it.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Timothy Peierls" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 11:09 PM
Subject: Re: XmlRpcServer found un-streamy
> John Wilson wrote:
> > If you are sending well formed XML you can
>
tp://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-rpc/ mailing list. You will find many
instances of people arguing for extensions, changes and clarifications in
the archive ;)
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
You want to use Xerces in an applet!
Hope you've got plenty of bandwidth;)
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Stuart Roll" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 20
pass. This makes the small result case (which is the most likely
case in an embedded system) quite quick and means the large result case
works slowly as opposed to not working at all.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 1:22 AM
Subject: [patch] catalina base64, optimizations and code cleanup
> Enclosed
.
Yes, but surely Apache XML-RPC is being developed and supported for a wider
audience than CollabNet. Or have I misunderstood something?
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2002 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [patch] catalina base64, optimizations and code cleanup
> "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
Apologies to all - this was intended to be an off list reply.
I'm *really* embarrassed to have screwed this up.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
odd that javac does not -- I wonder if there is a way to convince it
> that it should be constant?
I think Jikes is wrong here (which is very unusual!).
The JLS defines a compile-time constant in section 15.28. A compile time
constant can be the value of a primitive type or a String.
and a well deserved reputation for
respecting intellectual property. It appears to me that you should consider
carefully before adding extension to your XML-RPC implementation.
I do sympathise most deeply with your frustration, however;)
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
small to be viable. (a fork would almost
certainly produce more than two fragments - everybody agrees the spec is
unsatisfactory, this doesn't mean that they agree on what a satisfactory
spec would look like).
I'd really like to be wrong about this, but you would have to explai
character references must match the production
for Char. "
MinML currently and erroneously allows this - I'm in process of tightening
it's checking and it will soon reject it.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
ally get away without escaping >. The only
time you really have to do it is if ]]> appears in the element body when it
is not the termination part of a CDATA section. However it's lots simpler to
always escape >.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
> Is this the case or is it required that anything that may have a non-Char
> in it be base64 encoded?
If you want to send control characters (other than /r /n /t - and an XML
parser will mangle the /r and /n) then you need to use Base64 and agree a
Unicode encoding between the end points.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
t would possibly not allow the character with the value
0). This is an extreamly unpopular proposal with mant XML experts.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
7:05
Modified:src/java/org/apache/xmlrpc XmlRpc.java
Log:
Encode '>' as > in chardata() method of XmlWriter.
This is necessary if the chardata contains "]]>" (reported
by John Wilson)."
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
There's a DTD and W3C Schema at
http://www.ibiblio.org/xml/books/xmljava/chapters/ch02s05.html#d0e2848
The DTD is easy to do but not particularly useful. The Schema is more
interesting.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
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 Hoeg
f the code (avoiding converting from StringBuffer to String, returning
a char array rather than a byte array and the consequential changes). This
now runs the benchmark in ~26 seconds.
Are you interested in having these patches?
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
Sorry, I intended to attach the patch to the last message - here it is.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
class
file. This is an issue in the systems which run MinML-RPC but not in the
ones which run the Apache XML-RPC system.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: Bas64 encoding performance
[snip]
> I sent an email with the patches as an attachment to
One last go - see if the file extension of the attachment is significant.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
rote MinML-RPC in the first
place).
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
c Exp $
+ * @author John Wilson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
+ * @version $Id: Base64.java,v 1.2 2002/02/19 02:25:01 jon Exp $
*/
-public final class Base64
-{
-static private final int BASELENGTH = 255;
-static private final int LOOKUPLENGTH = 64;
-static private fina
- Original Message -
From: "Paul Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2002 10:00 PM
Subject: RE: Bas64 encoding performance
>
> > From: John Wilson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Subject: Re: Bas64 encoding p
Here you go
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 1:06 AM
Subject: Re: Bas64 encoding performance
> on 3/10/02 2:48
do not favour this change. I believe that the RFC allows a Base64
processor to reject messages containing non Table 1 characters and
whitespace. I believe that an XML-RPC Base64 processor should reject such
messages.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
or using turbine conventions
>
> martin
+1 for the Sun conventions.
;)
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Jon Scott Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 7:33 PM
Subject: Re: [vote] coding conventions
> on 3/14/02 11:16 AM, "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
&
tains nothing new of relevance to XML-RPC (the changes
involve mixed content which XM-RPC, thankfully, does not use). The 1.8
version will have changes which involve encoding which will be relevant to
XML-RPC.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
with
MinML (the MinML distribution contains this subset). Note that moving to a
later version of the SAX1 classes will cause deprecation warnings as the SAX
1 stuff has now been deprecated in favour of SAX2.
At some point we might want to consider moving from SAX1 to SAX2 (and from
MinML to MinML2). It buy
AX classes into a separate jar (this would not be needed at all
if the code was run under JDK 1.4 or later).
3/ Move the SAX classes and MinML into a separate jar.
4/ Remove MinML and the SAX classes from the distribution altogether.
I quite like option 1 - I think it reflects the reality of the two distinct
classes of use of this stuff.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
think dateTime.iso8601 is close to useless. An int field with
the number of ms since some epoc would be my preferred way of exchanging
time.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
> 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 Wils
- Original Message -
From: "Jason van Zyl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, June 02, 2002 1:41 PM
Subject: XMLRPC and Maven
> Hi,
>
> I just updated the Maven project descriptor to version 3 which matches
> what is required for the Maven b4 release that is for
-Dxml-rpc.list=java.util.ArrayList -Dxml-rpc.map=java.util.HashMap
I have not committed these changes as the applet issue does not seem to have
been settled yet.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
patch
Description: Binary data
ubset of the
Java 2 Collections classes with the applet would not work.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: "Adam Megacz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, August 18, 2002 1:54 AM
Subject: org.apache.xmlrpc.XmlWriter emits invalid XML
>
> According to XML 1.0, a CDATA section may contain only:
>
> [2] Char ::= #x9 | #xA | #xD | [#x20-#xD7FF
r
reference is
> > converted into a character.
> >
> > http://www.xml.com/axml/axml.html
>
> So rather than entity encoding the characters, an XmlRpcException of
> some sort should be thrown?
Yes, that's all that can be done if we want to meet the lett
the
> bounds of the spec without using the element.
Yes there is.
Any Unicode character allowed in an XML document and having a value greater
than 127 can be encoded as &#;. It is possible to represent any well
formed XML document in USACII (or EBCDIC for that matter).
John Wi
ve us?
It's a method with only package visability. It only throws an Exception in
one case this is wrapped in a ParseFailed exception which is then seen by
code outside the package.
It seams a reasonable design decision to me.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
tions and it won't stagnate.
There is already an excellent Java XML-RPC implementation on Sourceforge
http://xmlrpc.sourceforge.net/
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
;m not a fan of this feature. It's not widely implemented and I don't like
the security implications.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
example). However this is done in a
way which minimises the impact on interoperability.
If we are going to support chunking, compression, etc. we must be sure that
it has zero impact on interoperability.
Could you give us an impact assessment of the changes that you are proposing
on the interoperabili
an HTTP expert. If anybody can pick holes in the above I'd
be most grateful for the correction.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
rs.
(in your example - how can you detect if the headers have been tampered
with?)
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
nd backed them up with great discussion on the list. Seeing
> as how I'm not able to keep up with all the patches on my own, I
> propose that he be given commit access to the CVS repo. Can I get two
> more +1's?
+1
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
and throw an exception on non-whitespace, non-base64
> characters.
Yes I think that it is better to throw an exception on non whitespace.
Did you look at the performance of your new version? The existing code is
not as fast as it could be. It would be very nice if you have improved
performance as well
[snip]
It would have been better to submit this as two bug reports.
> When bad requests are addressed to the XmlRpcServer, the XML parser
> produces strange results.
>
> Case 1
> --
> The client sends a wellformed XML request which content is not a
> correct XML- RPC call.
> The parser seems
ce code can
> stay in our CVS repository with that copyright, but we could bundle a
> JAR. John, you don't happen to have any interest in donating MinML to
> the ASF? You would of course retain access.
No I don't think I want to do that.
I was under the impression that Apache code could include BSD licenced code
(which is what MinML is).
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
Daniel Rall wrote:
>> I was under the impression that Apache code could include BSD
>> licenced code (which is what MinML is).
>
> Yes, it certainly can. I was under the impression that we didn't
> usually include the _source_, however. I'll ask upstairs.
Thanks
Daniel Rall wrote:
> Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I was under the impression that Apache code could include BSD
>>> licenced code (which is what MinML is).
>>
>
n of the BSD licence which
does not have this clasue.
If you wish I would be very happy to send you a MinML release under this
licence if you contact me off list.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
r on rpc-dev
before adopting a standard solution.
I have cross posted this reply to rpc-dev as the JDK 1.2 and Log4J
discussion is probably better conducted there.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
e next MinML release should go into the XML_RPC release. This is
mainly because I'm changing the licence to the modified BSD licence so that
GPL users can include the MinML code.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
Ryan Hoegg wrote:
> John Wilson wrote:
[snip]
>
> On the JDK 1.2 issue, what is the use case for 1.1 support on the
> server side? My understanding is that we are trying to support 1.1
> for the client software to allow its use in applets.
Ryan,
J2ME users have issues with JDK 1.
+1
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 11:33 PM
Subject: [VOTE] Commit access for Ryan Hoegg
> Ryan Hoegg has been contributing to this list for a while now as both
> user, documenter, and developer, and is
+1 Plan 1
It's been too long since the last release. Users are being directed to the
CVS version too often (and too often the don't have the knowledge to make
use of the CVS version).
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: &
- Original Message -
From: "Daniel Rall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:51 PM
Subject: [VOTE] new XML-RPC mailing list names
> As XML-RPC is moving to the new Web Services project, its mailing list
names
> are going to change slightly. Ple
do
> this (although I am open to corrections).
MinML does not to autodetect of encoding nor does it take notice of the
encoding part of the XML declaration (if present).
I am in process of fixing both these issues. The next release of MinML will
support both auto detection and the encoding part o
trying to update the version of MinML used before the
release?
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
e the 8859-1 encoding attribute and emit UTF-8 (or, as a user
option, UTF-16).
Complient XML parsers will handle either of the above.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
eally needed.
Currently the Apache XML-RPC implementation *has* to generate an XML
declaration because it uses the 8859-1 encoding. It therefore has to
generate an encoding attribute in the declaration. If we were to change this
it would remove the need for the encoding attribute (there are several
options which would allow this) and we would "accidentally" solve your
problem.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
?
Because the aim of the project is to produce the best Java XML-RPC
implementation. I think we should be open to suggestions which make it a
better XML-RPC implementation but be very careful about suggestions which
make to code useful for other things if that places dependencies on the code
which potentially conflict with our prime aim.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
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&#
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 wr
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 thr
: Exp; lines: +15 -6
writeObject(): Noted new exception thrown.
chardata(): Characters out of range for the XML spec won't be written
as XML to avoid parse errors on the client side. Instead, and
exception will be thrown. This was originally noted by John Wilson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, with t
ause they can't be directly
represented in the encoding as you need to end the CDATA section emit
the numeric character reference and start the CDATA section again.
Its quite an interesting challenge to chose the optimal mixture of
CDATA sections and character entities to represent an arbitrary
document.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
point) says that timezones may not be present in a date. The
generally accepted interpretation of the spec is that only the precise
subset of ISO 8601 date/times given in the spec are legal in an XML-RPC
message. (Welcome to the wacky world of Dave winner's specs!)
John Wilson
The W
On 17 Jun 2004, at 09:20, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Do, 2004-06-17 at 09:36, John Wilson wrote:
The XML-RPC spec (http://www.xml-rpc.com/spec see the last but one
bullet point) says that timezones may not be present in a date. The
generally accepted interpretation of the spec is that only the
On 17 Jun 2004, at 09:40, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Do, 2004-06-17 at 10:24, John Wilson wrote:
The example in the spec does not include milliseconds - the generally
accepted interpretation of the spec (i.e. by XML-RPC implementers) is
that they are not permitted.
If so, that leaves still more
Apache XML-RPC (or at least Helma XML-RPC which became Apache) used to
implement . It was removed at the request of the author of the
spec (Dave Winer). I do not believe that this should be reintroduced.
John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership
http://www.wilson.co.uk
On 17 Jun 2004, at 11:20, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Do, 2004-06-17 at 11:59, John Wilson wrote:
Apache XML-RPC (or at least Helma XML-RPC which became Apache) used to
implement . It was removed at the request of the author of the
spec (Dave Winer). I do not believe that this should be reintroduced
On 17 Jun 2004, at 12:00, Jochen Wiedmann wrote:
On Do, 2004-06-17 at 12:35, John Wilson wrote:
"MinML-RPC is a minimal XML-RPC implementation. This is very
interesting, but I have some pushback. There is no such thing as "the
extension." If we added it, it would break at least one
77 matches
Mail list logo
