Greetings all,

I have always wondered why fulcrum was not used/considered to be the XML-RPC 
for Xindice. Can anybody give us some backgrond on that  please ?

The reason I think my question is related to Kimbro's question is that Fulcum 
is documented ?

On Sunday 10 Aug 2003 11:14 pm, Kevin O'Neill wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2003 21:00:21 -0700, Kimbro Staken wrote:
> > I've seen a number of posts referring to the XML-RPC API as being
> > private. That was certainly never the intention when it was originally
> > written. The major reason it exists is to give other languages access to
> > Xindice, which means it needs to be a publicly documented API. Or
> > lacking documentation, it at least needs to be considered OK to develop
> > against it if you can figure out how. What's the reason for preferring
> > otherwise?
>
> My reason is simple. I need to make a number of changes to the payload to
> fix outstanding bug reports (see
> http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xindice-dev&m=106026306508909&w=2 ). If
> it's private (ie unsupported) I can feel free to fix bugs without the need
> ensure that the solution is backward compatible. All I need to ensure is
> our unit tests execute for the xml-rpc driver.
>
> If someone wants to go ahead and create a driver for another language,
> that's fantastic. We should feel free to fix the bugs in our supported
> drivers as we see fit. Even if this means changing the payloads of the
> packets and breaking the third party driver.
>
> Beyond the fixes I have a number of improvements I want to do to the
> xml-rpc driver (lazy loading of paged results being one of the bigger
> ones). These things will certianly break compatibility.
>
> I suppose that we could say that we maintain compatibility at the payload
> level in bug fix releases (eg 1.1.1) and not . releases (eg 1.2). As long
> as we are happy to leave bugs in the bug fix releases that require a
> change to the payload.
>
> -k.

-- 

Best Regards.

JC.
           \\- - -//
          (  @ @  )
===oOOo-(_)-oOOo=================================================
      [EMAIL PROTECTED]
=================================================================

Reply via email to