ws-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Walter Mundt <>
Subject Re: How to use Vector or Hashtable from a PHP Client
Date Tue, 21 Mar 2006 22:32:02 GMT
> Walter,
> please be so kind to use my name rather than "the library maintainer".
I'm sorry, that message was somewhat more confrontational in tone than 
was really warranted.

> First of all, let's make clear whether this problem is actually with 
> overloading. For example, the method which was picked in that case was 
> the *second* method. I would assume, that the first method would be 
> choosen. Next, we do not even know, whether his problem is with version 
> 2, or version 3. 
True enough.  I was mainly intending to point out that this could be one 
possible cause of the issue, but you are correct that the code he 
provided would run under version two.

> Then, I wasn't aware, that overloading was possible by 
> default with version 2. If that's the case, I might rething my opinion. 
Interesting; I had thought that you were aware of this.  The design of 
version two (exactly one Java class per XML-RPC type) meant that any set 
of XML-RPC parameters has exactly one correspoding typed method 
signature.  Thus, the full-signature version of the 'getMethod' call can 
be used on method invocation to retrieve the matching overloaded method 
for a particular method call, and this is how version 2 of the library 
operates.  I suppose it's not completely obvious from the code that 
overloading is supported, but I've used it personally and can verify 
that it works.  In fact, my personal use of overloading with version two 
is what prompted me to add support in version three, since I need such 
support to continue using the library.

Note that this former method won't work for version three because a 
getMethod("foo", {List}) call won't find a foo(Object[]) method. 
However, given that the non-overloading version 3 currently always 
passes Object[]'s (I think), methods taking Lists are broken on the 
server side anyway.  Whether this is acceptable is your call, but the 
code to deal with it is pretty simple (it's in at least one of my 
patches.)  I'm not sure about method taking double vs. Double etc., but 
IMHO bo should probably be supported if possible as well.

 > And finally, please note, that I am not the only developer. This is a
 > community and I would never reject a discussion.
Even so, in most smaller and many larget F/OSS projects there is a 
"lead" developer who end up making the final decisions, and to the 
degree than anyone fills such a role for this project, it's currently 
you.  I don't begrudge you that role -- in fact, I'm very happy that 
someone is willing to put forth the time and effort to work on the code 
(and to deal with abrasive users/contributors like myself.)  And up to 
this point, you've been (from my point of view) quite determined to keep 
overloading out of version three, despite its usability in version two.

Walter Mundt

View raw message