2006/5/17, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Henri Gomez wrote:

> When I saw SPEC I see Date should be used not Calendar.

What Spec? The XML-RPC spec is completely unrelated to Java.

> Using Calendar instead of Date broke link with existing XML-RPC
> implementations, including XML-RPC 1.2 and 2.0 so we should use Date.

Did you read my last suggestion, which should also be able to restore
upwards compatibility?

Upward compatibility with what ? I'm using XML-RPC with non Java
client, and for instance some customers use PHP or C/C++ APIs and need
to stick with BASIC XML-RPC specs.

If I want more advanced Java support, I could choose on the client and
server to activate extensions, and so get BigDecimal / BigInteger /
Calendars / DOM and so on.

Or I could select SOAP.

But when using XML-RPC 3.0 without extensions, I want to be 100%
compatible with current Java, PHP, C/C++ implementations, so we should
have Date without TimeZone and no Calendar.

For instance, I host many services on the same JVM and I don't want to
have some parts of the applications using XML-RPC 2.0.1 and the others
one XML-RPC 3.0, it will be a nigthmare for configuration and
classloader.


> Also the format is :
>
> <dateTime.iso8601>    date/time    19980717T14:08:55
>
> Nothing like AAAA-MM-JJTHH:MM:SS+ZZ:ZZ (ex:
> 2005-11-21T00:00:00+01:00), which is the SOAP date  encoding.
>
> My patch restore use of java.util.Date as previously and provide
> Calendar as an extension.

Again, the format issue can be resolved within XsDateTimeFormat as well. And
your patch has the disadvantage, that we loose the ability to support the
timezones while extensions are active. Which we should, as John has agreed.

I've got no problem with TimeZone, but we should keep it in extension
mode for someone requesting a Timezonable object, like the Calendar.
That's why I do the patch like this.

Or we should use a different mechanism, where configuration for
Parser/Serializer will not be hardcoded to let people select what they
want in standard XML-RPC and what they want in extensions. It could be
done easily by a simple .xml file for example.

Jochen

Reply via email to