xml-rpc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From ar...@cornell.edu
Subject Re: recent patches
Date Fri, 13 Sep 2002 20:43:13 GMT

When I mentioned serialization it was only a guess as to how you were 
intending to pass a real java.lang.Object as contextual information (I 
didn't realize at that time that you were not talking about passing it at 
all).  No, I usually stay away from serialization because as you rightly 
note it will break interoperability.  In the case of Kerberos, my header 
is simply a Base64-encoded binary ticket stuck in an HTTP header, no 
serialization involved (although I assume one /could/ serialize an object 
and then Base64 encode it into a header if one really wanted...the key is 
that as per the HTTP spec, headers must be in ASCII..same goes for 
XML-RPC request content).


>Subject:  Re: recent patches
>From:     Ryan Hoegg <rhoegg@isisnetworks.net>
>Date:     2002-09-13 19:31:36
>Switching to post-quoting.
>I think you've sold me... in your particular situation interceptors is 
>necessary.  I would just caution you to remember cross-language 
>interoperability in your solution.. a .NET XML-RPC server won't be able 
>to use your serialized Java Context object.
>Ryan Hoegg
>ISIS Networks

View raw message