Re: Is XML_RPC2 Maintained?

On 2006 10 20 03:43, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

Let's see what Sergio says. With no answer in the next week I'll name you lead and request karma. Arnaud.

That seems entirely reasonable. As I look at the code and at PEAR coding standards, I note that not only is the CVS directory structure non-compliant, but that most of the class names use the form XML_RPC2_My_Class_Name rather than XML_RPC2_MyClassName. Downloads of the most recent version are running at less than 1500 (and less than 2000 for all versions). [I suspect few of them are working, since one bug causes ALL boolean elements to evaluate to true.] In the opinion of folks reading this, would it make sense to: a) refactor everything all at once at the expense of a BC break (in alpha), b) create XML_RPC3 and make RPC2 as deprecated, or c) continue with something that doesn't meet standards (and get savaged when trying to get it flagged as stable). (I obviously included option c for logical completeness; it seems a daft choice).