You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to xmlrpc-dev@ws.apache.org by "Daphna Wasserman (dwasserm)" <dw...@cisco.com> on 2009/03/24 09:00:38 UTC

Migrating from xmlrpc-1 to version 3

Hi,
 
We have been using xmlrpc-1.jar in our application for a while,and are
currently trying to migrate to the latest version (3.1.1)
Today, on the server side, we have a class which implements
XmlRpcHandler and handles all incoming XML-RPC requests. In order to
migrate to 3.1.1, it is necessary to add handlers specifically. The
problems is that our handlers contain invalid datatypes in terms of the
XML-RPC, and its is impossible for us now to add support for all of
these custom data types.
 
Is there a more generic way to handle requests, such as i version 1?
 
Thanks
Daphna

Re: Migrating from xmlrpc-1 to version 3

Posted by Jochen Wiedmann <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 9:00 AM, Daphna Wasserman (dwasserm)
<dw...@cisco.com> wrote:

> We have been using xmlrpc-1.jar in our application for a while,and are
> currently trying to migrate to the latest version (3.1.1)
> Today, on the server side, we have a class which implements
> XmlRpcHandler and handles all incoming XML-RPC requests. In order to
> migrate to 3.1.1, it is necessary to add handlers specifically. The
> problems is that our handlers contain invalid datatypes in terms of the
> XML-RPC, and its is impossible for us now to add support for all of
> these custom data types.
>
> Is there a more generic way to handle requests, such as i version 1?

I do not understand how you handled "invalid datatypes" in version 1.
An example of the XML and/or class in question could help.

In theory, custom data types shouldn't be a problem. See the secion on
that topic in

    http://ws.apache.org/xmlrpc/advanced.html

handlers

Jochen



-- 
I have always wished for my computer to be as easy to use as my
telephone; my wish has come true because I can no longer figure out
how to use my telephone.

    -- (Bjarne Stroustrup,
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/bs_faq.html#really-say-that
       My guess: Nokia E50)