Re: [Tiki-devel] Port XML/RPC code to a maintained equivalent.

Hi Marc

I think option 4 (to switch) will be best, don't you?

How much work will that be do you think (Domeshow)?

Can others help? (Victor maybe?)


I'm already delaying branching a bit with the calendar thing, and we should wait for the colour mode switch module too (ah, just seen Roberto's mail) so hopefully we'll have time...

If it turns into a monster project then option 3 (patching the existing PEAR lib) shouldn't be too hard, we already patch a few of those don't we?

Thanks :)

jonny




> On 31 May 2023, at 22:22, Marc Laporte <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> InterTiki is broken in trunk with "Unable to contact remote server" since we moved to PHP 8.1
> 
> Our scanning tools didn't pick up the issue because the lib says the minimum supported version (PHP4.2+), but not the max. Even we had known, it was time to burn the bridges to PHP 7.4
> 
> 
> We have some options:
> 
> 1- Not continue the tradition of dogfooding the stable branch for dev.tiki.org, doc.tiki.org, etc. and thus, de facto maintaining 25x and 26x until 27
> 
> 2- Replace InterTiki by something else (local logins, remote auto-login, a SAML server, etc.)
> 
> 3- Patch the current lib to work with PHP 8.1
> 
> 4- Replace the XML-RPC  lib (What Emmanuel worked on)
> 
> 
> The problem was discussed on Gitter:
> https://matrix.to/#/!SLEgqpTNTlGYAhzNvK:gitter.im/$LLNB8TpHmxOmSVzgD_7gJcoS3kXbRNeDmnIMIVjUMhs?via=matrix.org&via=gitter.im&via=coeus.ca
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Marc
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 31 May 2023 15:03:46 +0100 Tiki developers [email protected] said
> 
>> Hi Domeshow
>> Thanks for that, sounds good although don't have time to dig very deeply into
>> it just now, but i think InterTiki clients use XMP/RPC to communicate with
>> the server, so we'll know pretty quickly if it breaks! :)
>> I'm guessing this will be for tiki 27+ as we're branching 26.x any day now,
>> so maybe postpone this project for a little while until we get 26.x in good
>> shape and aren't needing to merge/cherry pick so much into master?
>> Thanks
>> jonny
>> > On 30 May 2023, at 13:36, Domeshow Emmanuel <[email protected]>
>> > wrote:
>> > > Greetings!
>> > We are forced to replace the pear/xml_rpc package because the limitations
>> > become visible in tiki26 which already uses php8.1 as the minimum version of
>> > PHP because it is not maintained and does not support this new version of PHP.
>> > XML RPC support in tiki (it's more than one feature) isn't something we want
>> > to drop. While the status of the various features is uncertain, interacting
>> > with other generic systems is at the core of what tiki does, and XML RPC is a
>> > protocol that is still used in the wild.
>> > > Pear XML_RPC (the original) is not even on Packagist:
>> > https://packagist.org/packages/pear/xml_rpc
>> > https://pear.php.net/package/XML_RPC
>> > https://pear.php.net/package/XML_RPC2
>> > https://github.com/pear/XML_RPC/tree/tags/RELEASE_1_5_5
>> > https://github.com/pear/XML_RPC2
>> > > There are modern options here https://packagist.org/?query=xml%20RPC and
>> > after much analysis I chose the package gggeek/phpxmlrpc for many reasons.
>> > gggeek/phpxmlrpc is a PHP library for building XML-RPC clients and servers
>> > that supports PHP 5.4 and above.
>> > > Here are the reasons I found that led me to choose it:
>> > - It supports php8
>> > - It has ease of installation using Composer
>> > - It has ease of use: gggeek/phpxmlrpc and PHP's native XML-RPC functions
>> > have a higher level API that abstracts the details of XML-RPC encoding and
>> > decoding > - It is well documented:
>> > https://github.com/gggeek/phpxmlrpc/blob/master/doc/manual/phpxmlrpc_manual.adoc
>> > - It has similarity to pear/xml_rpc which is used for now
>> > - It offers more features: gggeek/phpxmlrpc has more features than
>> > pear/XML_RPC, such as HTTP 1.1 support, multicall, cookies, compression, SSL,
>> > proxies, etc. > - And finally, it is updated regularly. Last commit is 3 months ago.
>> > By this mail please help me in the choice knowing that I tested and I am
>> > convinced of the latter.
>> > Thanks!
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > TikiWiki-devel mailing list
>> > [email protected]
>> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel
>> _______________________________________________
>> TikiWiki-devel mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TikiWiki-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tikiwiki-devel