Re: system.getCapabilities
"betadmn" <[email protected]> Wed, 24 Mar 2010 05:24:23 -0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.text.xml.rpc.specification |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
--- In [email protected], Andreas Bolka <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): > > <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@... > 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/