- Extensibility: The current framework has clearly been designed with the XML-RPC specification in mind. As a consequence, it does very well, what it is implemented for. However, it could do much more: Support for all basic Java types, the null value, serializable objects or even embedded XML documents (DOM, JDOM, JAXB) are worth being implemented.
Of course, these would be violating the XML-RPC specification. However, fact is, that most of us aren't so much interested in interoperability. A compromise might very well be, that the extensions are disabled by default and need explicit enabling by the user. In other words: The user needs to be aware, that he is violating the specification. Additionally, the violations could very well be made obvious on the protocol level by using XML namespaces.
I agree with your suggestion, but strongly disagree with your statement about inter-operability. Every single patch that I've submitted has been due to some minor incompatibility with remote XML-RPC implementations. By default, the current framework *must* not violate the XML-RPC specification.
--
Steve
------------------------------------------------------------
"Always ... always remember: Less is less. More is more. More is
better. And twice as much is good too. Not enough is bad. And too
much is never enough except when it's just about right."
-- The Tick
------------------------------------------------------------
