Home
Reading
Searching
Subscribe
Sponsors
Statistics
Posting
Contact
Spam
Lists
Links
About
Hosting
Filtering
Features Download
Marketing
Archives
FAQ
Blog
 
Gmane
From: betadmn <betadmn <at> yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: system.getCapabilities
Newsgroups: gmane.text.xml.rpc.specification
Date: Wednesday 24th March 2010 05:24:23 UTC (over 6 years ago)
--- In [email protected], Andreas Bolka  wrote:
>
> Hi all!
> 
> As I just noticed, no one has yet posted the struct approach, for
> beeing able to look up wether a implementation supports a given
> capability - as Charles and me have already textually described it,
> I'll first try to formalise this ;) Afterwards some more thoughts.
> 
> so here's a RFC:
> 
> struct system.getCapabilities()
> 
> retval:
>  struct {
>      "specId1" => struct {
>          "specUrl" => string,
>          "specVersion" => integer
>      }
>      "specId2" => struct {
>          "specUrl" => string,
>          "specVersion" => integer
>      }
>      ...
>  }
> 
> in XML (example):
> 
> 
>         
>                 xmlrpc
>                 
>                        
>                                
>                                        specUrl
>                                        http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec
>                                        
>                                
>                                        specVersion
>                                        1
>                                        
>                                
>                        
>                 
>         
>                 introspect
>                 
>                        
>                                
>                                        specUrl
>                                        http://xmlrpc.usefulinc.com/doc/reserved.html
>                                        
>                                
>                                        specVersion
>                                        1
>                                        
>                                
>                        
>                 
>         
>                 faultCodes
>                 
>                        
>                                
>                                        specUrl
>                                        http://xmlrpc-epi.sourceforge.net/specs/rfc.fault_codes.php
>                                        
>                                
>                                        specVersion
>                                        3
>                                        
>                                
>                        
>                 
>         
> 
> 
> Some more thoughts:
> 
> This does not allow a client to distinguish between specs not
> supported and not up-to-date capabilities structs. On the other hand a
> server-maintainer ist not able to explicitly state that 'we do _not_
> support this spec.'
> 
> This is a minor point, and I don't know wether it makes sense to add
> more complexity to the approach stated above, just to fix that. One
> solution could be to allow to 'values' vor the spec-structs. If the
> value is a bool, it must be false and it is explicitly stated that
> this spec is _not_ supported. If the value is a struct, it follows the
> above described behaviour. Would the dynamic structs eventually raise
> a problem for some implementations?
> 
> Does that make any sense anyway?
> 
> (Btw, I noticed that Dan's and my approaches are absolutely identical,
> except of the int/float thing. Funny stuff ... :)
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
>  Andreas                          mailto:andreas.bolka@...
>
does not work here http://northwestairliness.blogspot.com/



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-rpc/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/xml-rpc/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 
CD: 3ms