[PEPr] +1 for XML::XML_RPC2
| From: | Joshua Eichorn | Date: | Wed, 11 May 2005 18:22:00 +0000 |
| Subject: | [PEPr] +1 for XML::XML_RPC2 | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.pear.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to pear-dev+get-37572@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
Joshua Eichorn (http://pear.php.net/user/jeichorn) has voted +1 on the proposal for XML::XML_RPC2.
Proposal information:
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-proposal-show.php?id=172
Vote information:
http://pear.php.net/pepr/pepr-vote-show.php?id=172&handle=jeichorn
This vote is conditional. The condition is:
I'm concerned that your punting the integration work with the xmlrpc extension. Especially
since there is work happening on xmlrpci which provides and OO api to xmlrpc. Can you at least do a
review of the extension apis to see how integrating them will affect your design, and also note the
differences in your api from xmlrpci.
I'm also concerned about forcing docblock documentation to export a class. I think there should
be an api to set what your going to export that can be optionally used instead of adding the
docblock params.
Also for something like xmlrpc It would be good to see at least some sort of compatiability testing
goals with implementations in other languages since thats generally the purpose of using xml based
rpc.
Your also not following the page docblock standards and some other areas where your not following
the coding standards, but thats not a big concern.
This is a conditional vote to summarize:
Add an api for setting up a server without introspection
Add extension support or at least review how doing that will affect your design, especially from a
speed aspect.
I would also really like to see a compat test against the spec testsuite if there is one and if not
at least a basic test against another language's xmlrpc implementation.
--
Sent by PEPr, the automatic proposal system at http://pear.php.net