24 Mar 2010 06:24
Re: system.getCapabilities
betadmn <betadmn <at> yahoo.com>
2010-03-24 05:24:23 GMT
2010-03-24 05:24:23 GMT
--- In xml-rpc <at> yahoogroups.com, Andreas Bolka <andreas.bolka <at> ...> 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):
>
> <struct>
> <member>
> <name>xmlrpc</name>
> <value>
> <struct>
> <member>
> <name>specUrl</name>
> <value><string>http://www.xmlrpc.com/spec</string></value>
> </member>
> <member>
> <name>specVersion</name>
> <value><int>1</int></value>
> </member>
> </struct>
> </value>
> </member>
> <member>
> <name>introspect</name>
> <value>
> <struct>
> <member>
> <name>specUrl</name>
> <value><string>http://xmlrpc.usefulinc.com/doc/reserved.html</string></value>
> </member>
> <member>
> <name>specVersion</name>
> <value><int>1</int></value>
> </member>
> </struct>
> </value>
> </member>
> <member>
> <name>faultCodes</name>
> <value>
> <struct>
> <member>
> <name>specUrl</name>
> <value><string>http://xmlrpc-epi.sourceforge.net/specs/rfc.fault_codes.php</string></value>
> </member>
> <member>
> <name>specVersion</name>
> <value><int>3</int></value>
> </member>
> </struct>
> </value>
> </member>
> </struct>
>
>
> 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 <at> ...
>
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:
xml-rpc-digest <at> yahoogroups.com
xml-rpc-fullfeatured <at> yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
xml-rpc-unsubscribe <at> yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
RSS Feed