Re: XML_RPC2 Roadmap

Hi, Moving to HTTP_Request2 is indeed in the roadmap. The comments in XML_RPC2 code suggest that. My only issue is that HTTP_Request2 is still alpha, and I'd prefer to base development in at least a beta release. However, you seem to be hard-pressed into the adaptation. If you can write the code, I'm more than glad to include it in the package. We can get an alpha version out, and keep it lukewarm until HTTP_Request2 evolves. I'm sorry I can't be of more help. My past few weeks have been crazy, and this'll only calm down when people start leaving for summer vacation in a month's time. If you still require my coding help by then, I'll be glad to help. As for the period between releases, that is natural for a package implementing a protocol. Beyond bug fixes, XML_RPC2 does exactly what it was designed to do. RFEs usually deal with particularities of HTTP, which must really be dealt with by HTTP_Request2. Cheers, -- Sérgio Carvalho On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 15:34 -0300, Pedro Padron wrote: > Hello! > > I am currently working on a new package (Services_Parallels_KA - to be > proposed) that uses XML_RPC2, and I have a few questions... > I've faced an issue when sending requests via SSL. By default, curl > was using SSLv2, but I needed SSLv3. > XML_RPC2 does not support specifying the curl option to set the SSL > version, so this is a feature I thought about opening a bug report and > submitting a patch. > > However, HTTP_Request2 is now available, and both Alexey Borzov and > Daniel O'Connor have already suggested it's use instead of curl. > I think that maybe a driver approach would be nice in this case, because: > > - the developer will be able to choose how the request will be made; > - more flexibility in package dependencies; > - drivers are easier to mock (#15855) > > I consider XML_RPC2 a very useful package, and I am willing to make an > effort to work on those things I've mentioned. > So here are my questions: > > - do you people think it's worth implementing drivers in this package? > - are the lead developers still interested in maintaining it (last > release was in 2008-09-10)? > > What do you say? > > Thanks, > Pedro Padron