In my research on this issue I have communicated with many people who have done similar work to your specification. I am not sure this conversation belongs on xindice-dev, but everyone who has looked at this in the past has seemed to get to a certain point and then stop. If we actually had a few applications using this new protocol, maybe it would gain some steam. Of course, it would be up to the Xindice dev team to decide if that is a direction they would like to take the project.
If you would like to take xrpc further, e-mail me off-list and I can discuss my experiences further.
-- Ryan Hoegg ISIS Networks http://www.isisnetworks.net
Tom Bradford wrote:
Dave Winer is of the opinion that to modify XML-RPC would be to break all implementations of it, which isn't necessarily the case. I'm also curious Vadim, what return types can't otherwise be coerced?
I had an idea for a much slimmed down protocol called XRPC, I don't know if anyone would like to work on an implementation with me, but it's a much leaner, and attempts to support things like literal XML and a tighter binding with XML Schema datatypes. Also supports an asynchronous model.
blog entry at http://tbradford.blogspot.com/2003_09_23_tbradford_archive.html spec and schema are at http://tbradford.blogspot.com/2003_09_26_tbradford_archive.html
Ryan, XMLWriter needs to be modified to support proper UTF-8 serialization... I took a shit-fit this weekend and created my own derivation of Apache XML-RPC's client to do all this stuff, you might want to take a look at it:
http://tbradford.blogspot.com/ 2003_11_30_tbradford_archive.html#107023953359946198
-- Tom Bradford - http://www.tbradford.org/ CTO - The dbXML Group - http://www.dbxml.com/ Project Labrador - http://www.dbxml.com/labrador/
