on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:22:23 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> rufio wrote: > > on Thu, 17 Jul 2003 07:44:01 +0100 "John Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > >> rufio wrote: > [stuf] > > You have not addressed the encoding issue. You are talking about technical issues so I assume that you agree it's good to have possibility to use different transports :) > This is really a quite > fundamental problem with what you propose. If the XML generation code > doesn't generate an XML header then it needs to be told what encoding > to use. To be a general solution the writer has to be able to emit all > the common encodings (UTF-8, UTF-16, US-ASCII, ISO 8859-1 at the very > least). This is really an non trivial job and this code would need to > be developed tested and maintained and yet give no benefit to XML-RPC > users. I don't see your problem. All you have to do is split what changes and what stay constant: generating string containing a XML messge is constant so framework does that; encoding may change, and besides it's rather low level issue, so transport layer should encode the message. As for now XmlWriter supports utf-8 and iso-8859-1. If writers were provided by plugins, you would just move existing wiriter to the default-http transport plugin and don't care about rest.
