Re: Is XML_RPC2 Maintained?

Hello Sérgio: I've been hacking around with a copy of this package and there's a lot of refactoring to do: * Making the directory structures comply with CS guidelines (well

     actually http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20031114-pds.php is
     phrased more as a "rule" than a "guideline").

* Changing class names from XML_RPC2_Backend_Php_Whatever to

     XML_RPC2_BackendPhpWhatever, again in compliance with CS guidelines.

* Use of PEAR logging instead of debugging via print (e.g. in

     CachedClient.php).

All of these will be causing significant API changes From a quick look, HTTP_Request has a lot of dependencies. There could be quite a delay if we wait on it. maybe we can abstract the transport layer to the point where it won't affect the API significantly... I started working on RPC2 as part of an effort to align my own XML-RPC libraries with PEAR. I posted a (rather buggy) patch on the dev list that supports user-defined back ends, with the intent of plugging in my stuff as a "user backend". There are also some other significant things that I think need support, such as the option to encode associative arrays as structs; and tests related to whitespace preservation (I have an application where "cdata<tag/>cdata" is radically different from "cdata <tag/> cdata"). I would be happy to come on board to help with the project, given that we all agree on direction, and that we're serious about getting this thing to a stable release. If we have a difference in philosophy then it's productive for no one, and if we're working on the "release it in a year" schedule, then I just don't have the attention span. On 2006 10 21 15:33, Sérgio Carvalho wrote:

Maintained, yes, although most of the recent work has been done by Fabien Marty. Do we need more help. Of course! Mostly, testing and creating automatic tests against more XML-RPC implementations on more platforms. As for the move to beta status, I'd prefer to do that only after HTTP_Request creates a PHP5 version, so we'd get rid of the HTTP_Request stub inside XML_RPC2. I'm unclear wether such switch would require a change in the API. Please email me if you wish to be added as a developer. Kind regards, -- Sérgio Carvalho On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 23:53 -0400, Alan Langford wrote:

This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open bugs, including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year. I have been working on extending the package to support additional backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass its own QA tests. There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve performance. I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if anyone will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and although they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will have something to say about them. I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.