Re: Larger than 32bit signed?

>> I don't think the lack of protocol version information makes much
>> difference in this case.
>Maybe I am overlooking something but the underlying API's would have a
>chance to fall back to earlier versions and do some of the hacky
>conversions described in this thread.

What I'm thinking is that if you can write a program that falls back
to the 1999 standard, then you might as well do _just_ the 1999
standard.

In other protoocols, there are cases where a multi-protocol
communicant is able to work more efficiently with a new protocol but
fall back to an older one when working with an old partner, but I
don't see anything like that in new XML-RPC data types.

The advantage of new data types would be that it's easier to write
(and test, debug, and maintain) code.  If you have to additionally
write the difficult fallback code, that ruins everything.  And if you
don't write the fallback code, you have the interoperability problem
where you have to worry about whether the particular client or server
you want to talk to knows the newer protocol.

-- 
Bryan Henderson                                    Phone 408-621-2000
San Jose, California


 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

<*> 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/