FAQ
This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open bugs,
including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

I have been working on extending the package to support additional
backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass its
own QA tests.

There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve performance.

I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if anyone
will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and although
they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
have something to say about them.

I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.

Search Discussions

  • Arnaud Limbourg at Oct 20, 2006 at 7:43 am

    Alan Langford wrote:
    This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open bugs,
    including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
    serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
    doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
    by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

    I have been working on extending the package to support additional
    backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass its
    own QA tests.

    There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
    simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
    issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve performance.

    I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if anyone
    will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and although
    they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
    have something to say about them.

    I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
    PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.
    Let's see what Sergio says. With no answer in the next week I'll name
    you lead and request karma.

    Arnaud.
  • Alan Langford at Oct 20, 2006 at 1:41 pm

    On 2006 10 20 03:43, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

    Let's see what Sergio says. With no answer in the next week I'll name
    you lead and request karma.

    Arnaud.
    That seems entirely reasonable. As I look at the code and at PEAR coding
    standards, I note that not only is the CVS directory structure
    non-compliant, but that most of the class names use the form
    XML_RPC2_My_Class_Name rather than XML_RPC2_MyClassName. Downloads of
    the most recent version are running at less than 1500 (and less than
    2000 for all versions). [I suspect few of them are working, since one
    bug causes ALL boolean elements to evaluate to true.]

    In the opinion of folks reading this, would it make sense to:
    a) refactor everything all at once at the expense of a BC break (in alpha),
    b) create XML_RPC3 and make RPC2 as deprecated, or
    c) continue with something that doesn't meet standards (and get savaged
    when trying to get it flagged as stable).

    (I obviously included option c for logical completeness; it seems a daft
    choice).
  • Justin Patrin at Oct 20, 2006 at 2:55 pm

    On 10/20/06, Alan Langford wrote:
    On 2006 10 20 03:43, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:

    Let's see what Sergio says. With no answer in the next week I'll name
    you lead and request karma.

    Arnaud.
    That seems entirely reasonable. As I look at the code and at PEAR coding
    standards, I note that not only is the CVS directory structure
    non-compliant, but that most of the class names use the form
    XML_RPC2_My_Class_Name rather than XML_RPC2_MyClassName. Downloads of
    the most recent version are running at less than 1500 (and less than
    2000 for all versions). [I suspect few of them are working, since one
    bug causes ALL boolean elements to evaluate to true.]

    In the opinion of folks reading this, would it make sense to:
    a) refactor everything all at once at the expense of a BC break (in alpha),
    If it's still alpha go with this option. Thanks for looking into
    coding standards. :-)
    b) create XML_RPC3 and make RPC2 as deprecated, or
    c) continue with something that doesn't meet standards (and get savaged
    when trying to get it flagged as stable).

    (I obviously included option c for logical completeness; it seems a daft
    choice).

    --
    PEAR QA Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

    --
    Justin Patrin
  • Arnaud Limbourg at Nov 21, 2006 at 7:10 pm
    Hi alan,

    A bit late but I just made you lead of RPC2.

    You can write to pear-group to request karma.

    Sorry for the delay,

    Arnaud.

    Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
    Alan Langford wrote:
    This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open bugs,
    including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
    serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
    doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
    by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

    I have been working on extending the package to support additional
    backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass its
    own QA tests.

    There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
    simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
    issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve performance.

    I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if anyone
    will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and although
    they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
    have something to say about them.

    I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
    PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.
    Let's see what Sergio says. With no answer in the next week I'll name
    you lead and request karma.

    Arnaud.
  • Alan Langford at Nov 21, 2006 at 7:37 pm
    Woah... Sergio is still active, it's his baby! In fact I'm the one who's
    behind, I owe him a patch but real life has been interfering heavily
    with my plans (darn those pesky customers). I really don't want to tick
    him off, so developer status is probably more appropriate.
    On 2006 11 21 14:10, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
    Hi alan,

    A bit late but I just made you lead of RPC2.

    You can write to pear-group to request karma.

    Sorry for the delay,

    Arnaud.

    Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
    Alan Langford wrote:
    This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open
    bugs,
    including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
    serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
    doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
    by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

    I have been working on extending the package to support additional
    backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass
    its
    own QA tests.

    There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
    simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
    issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve
    performance.

    I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if
    anyone
    will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and
    although
    they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
    have something to say about them.

    I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
    PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.
    Let's see what Sergio says. With no answer in the next week I'll name
    you lead and request karma.

    Arnaud.

  • Arnaud Limbourg at Nov 21, 2006 at 7:45 pm
    Mm, I didn't see any mail, did I miss that ? If so, sorry !

    I put you back to developer then.

    Arnaud.

    Alan Langford wrote:
    Woah... Sergio is still active, it's his baby! In fact I'm the one who's
    behind, I owe him a patch but real life has been interfering heavily
    with my plans (darn those pesky customers). I really don't want to tick
    him off, so developer status is probably more appropriate.
    On 2006 11 21 14:10, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
    Hi alan,

    A bit late but I just made you lead of RPC2.

    You can write to pear-group to request karma.

    Sorry for the delay,

    Arnaud.

    Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
    Alan Langford wrote:
    This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open
    bugs,
    including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
    serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
    doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
    by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

    I have been working on extending the package to support additional
    backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass
    its
    own QA tests.

    There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
    simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
    issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve
    performance.

    I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if
    anyone
    will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and
    although
    they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
    have something to say about them.

    I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
    PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.
    Let's see what Sergio says. With no answer in the next week I'll name
    you lead and request karma.

    Arnaud.

  • Sérgio Carvalho at Nov 22, 2006 at 11:27 am
    Hi,

    I'd swear I sent an email to pear-qa, but knowing myself I may have
    slipped past it. Sorry.

    I've accepted Alan as developer for the package. He has quite a few good
    ideas on modularizing the backends. As usual, after I know I can trust
    Alan's code, the move to lead is natural.

    Kind regards,
    On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 20:45 +0100, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
    Mm, I didn't see any mail, did I miss that ? If so, sorry !

    I put you back to developer then.

    Arnaud.

    Alan Langford wrote:
    Woah... Sergio is still active, it's his baby! In fact I'm the one who's
    behind, I owe him a patch but real life has been interfering heavily
    with my plans (darn those pesky customers). I really don't want to tick
    him off, so developer status is probably more appropriate.
    On 2006 11 21 14:10, Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
    Hi alan,

    A bit late but I just made you lead of RPC2.

    You can write to pear-group to request karma.

    Sorry for the delay,

    Arnaud.

    Arnaud Limbourg wrote:
    Alan Langford wrote:
    This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open
    bugs,
    including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
    serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
    doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
    by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

    I have been working on extending the package to support additional
    backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass
    its
    own QA tests.

    There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
    simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
    issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve
    performance.

    I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if
    anyone
    will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and
    although
    they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
    have something to say about them.

    I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
    PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.
    Let's see what Sergio says. With no answer in the next week I'll name
    you lead and request karma.

    Arnaud.

    --
    --
    Sérgio Carvalho
  • Sérgio Carvalho at Oct 21, 2006 at 7:33 pm
    Maintained, yes, although most of the recent work has been done by
    Fabien Marty. Do we need more help. Of course! Mostly, testing and
    creating automatic tests against more XML-RPC implementations on more
    platforms.

    As for the move to beta status, I'd prefer to do that only after
    HTTP_Request creates a PHP5 version, so we'd get rid of the HTTP_Request
    stub inside XML_RPC2. I'm unclear wether such switch would require a
    change in the API.

    Please email me if you wish to be added as a developer.

    Kind regards,
    --
    Sérgio Carvalho

    On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 23:53 -0400, Alan Langford wrote:
    This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open bugs,
    including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
    serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
    doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
    by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

    I have been working on extending the package to support additional
    backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass its
    own QA tests.

    There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
    simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
    issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve performance.

    I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if anyone
    will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and although
    they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
    have something to say about them.

    I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
    PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.
  • Alan Langford at Oct 21, 2006 at 8:32 pm
    Hello Sérgio:

    I've been hacking around with a copy of this package and there's a lot
    of refactoring to do:

    * Making the directory structures comply with CS guidelines (well
    actually http://pear.php.net/group/docs/20031114-pds.php is
    phrased more as a "rule" than a "guideline").
    * Changing class names from XML_RPC2_Backend_Php_Whatever to
    XML_RPC2_BackendPhpWhatever, again in compliance with CS guidelines.
    * Use of PEAR logging instead of debugging via print (e.g. in
    CachedClient.php).

    All of these will be causing significant API changes

    From a quick look, HTTP_Request has a lot of dependencies. There could
    be quite a delay if we wait on it. maybe we can abstract the transport
    layer to the point where it won't affect the API significantly...

    I started working on RPC2 as part of an effort to align my own XML-RPC
    libraries with PEAR. I posted a (rather buggy) patch on the dev list
    that supports user-defined back ends, with the intent of plugging in my
    stuff as a "user backend". There are also some other significant things
    that I think need support, such as the option to encode associative
    arrays as structs; and tests related to whitespace preservation (I have
    an application where "cdata<tag/>cdata" is radically different from
    "cdata <tag/> cdata").

    I would be happy to come on board to help with the project, given that
    we all agree on direction, and that we're serious about getting this
    thing to a stable release. If we have a difference in philosophy then
    it's productive for no one, and if we're working on the "release it in a
    year" schedule, then I just don't have the attention span.
    On 2006 10 21 15:33, Sérgio Carvalho wrote:
    Maintained, yes, although most of the recent work has been done by
    Fabien Marty. Do we need more help. Of course! Mostly, testing and
    creating automatic tests against more XML-RPC implementations on more
    platforms.

    As for the move to beta status, I'd prefer to do that only after
    HTTP_Request creates a PHP5 version, so we'd get rid of the HTTP_Request
    stub inside XML_RPC2. I'm unclear wether such switch would require a
    change in the API.

    Please email me if you wish to be added as a developer.

    Kind regards,
    --
    Sérgio Carvalho

    On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 23:53 -0400, Alan Langford wrote:

    This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open bugs,
    including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
    serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
    doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
    by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

    I have been working on extending the package to support additional
    backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass its
    own QA tests.

    There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
    simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
    issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve performance.

    I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if anyone
    will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and although
    they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
    have something to say about them.

    I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
    PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.



  • Fabien MARTY at Oct 22, 2006 at 12:15 am
    Hi,

    Because of the dead of a project I worked on...

    ...today, I don't use XMLRPC anymore

    So I'm not a really a good "lead" for this package :-(


    So Sergio, thanks to downgrade my karma to a simple developper (for
    this package).


    IMHO, XML_RPC2 is a good alpha package. It's not a bad draft. There
    are plenty of unit tests, some peardocs and the code is ok. There is
    no need to launch a XML_RPC3. XML_RPC2 need only a little love to be
    able to get out from the alpha state.

    Regards

    Fabien





    2006/10/19, Alan Langford <jal@ambitonline.com>:
    This package has been Alpha since March; there are some minor open bugs,
    including some patches (some of them not so good); and some fairly
    serious ones. In particular there is "XML_RPC2 CVS directory structure
    doesn't respect the PEAR standard", which seems to have been submitted
    by one of the listed maintainers -- late last year.

    I have been working on extending the package to support additional
    backends and I have discovered that the current version doesn't pass its
    own QA tests.

    There are also some TODO's that are awaiting improved stability from
    simplexml, and my guess is that in the last seven months some of these
    issues have been addressed. Fixing these issues will improve performance.

    I can submit a patch to fix the minor issues, but I'm not sure if anyone
    will be listening. My planned extensions are more extensive and although
    they don't break BC, I'm sure anyone responsible for the package will
    have something to say about them.

    I'm willing to adopt this package if nobody is maintaining it. I have a
    PEAR account but I don't think it's got CVS karma.

    --
    PEAR QA Mailing List (http://pear.php.net/)
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php


    --
    Fabien MARTY
    fabien.marty@gmail.com
  • Arnaud Limbourg at Oct 22, 2006 at 7:33 pm

    Fabien MARTY wrote:
    Hi,

    Because of the dead of a project I worked on...

    ...today, I don't use XMLRPC anymore

    So I'm not a really a good "lead" for this package :-(


    So Sergio, thanks to downgrade my karma to a simple developper (for
    this package).
    I just did it.
    IMHO, XML_RPC2 is a good alpha package. It's not a bad draft. There
    are plenty of unit tests, some peardocs and the code is ok. There is
    no need to launch a XML_RPC3. XML_RPC2 need only a little love to be
    able to get out from the alpha state.

    Regards

    Fabien
    Arnaud.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppear-qa @
categoriesphp
postedOct 19, '06 at 3:53a
activeNov 22, '06 at 11:27a
posts12
users5
websitepear.php.net

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase