[Patches] [ python-Patches-1360243 ] Add XML-RPC Fault Interoperability to XMLRPC libraries

[SourceForge.net]

Patches item #1360243, was opened at 2005-11-18 17:22
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loewis
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1360243&group_id=5470

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Library (Lib)
Group: Python 2.4
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Joshua Ginsberg (jaginsberg)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Add XML-RPC Fault Interoperability to XMLRPC libraries

Initial Comment:
Patched against 2.4.2

SimpleXMLRPCServer.py

* Added SimpleXMLRPCDispatcher.register_capability() to
manage results for system.getCapabilities() RPC call.

* Added
SimpleXMLRPCDispatcher.register_fault_interop_spec() to
make fault codes compliant with the specification

* Abstracted fault code constants.

xmlrpclib.py

* Added more detailed exception raising for failures in
XML-RPC request parsing.



----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2006-11-19 11:23

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=21627
Originator: NO

The patch looks good, however, I have a few questions:

- what is the purpose of abstracting fault code constants? For
interoperability, I think they should always have the specified values.
Furthermore, if register_fault_interop_spec isn't called, it will give 1
as the fault code if some of these faults occurs, which is bad.

- why is system.getCapabilities registered in register_fault_interop_spec?
That sounds backwards: there should be a register_get_capabilities
function, or better yet, this should get registered with
register_introspection_functions.

- if you agree to these changes so far, I think
register_fault_interop_spec should go away, or invoked by default. What is
the purpose of making it optional (especially since raising the faults is
not optional)?

- Please provide documentation changes (i.e. a patch to
Doc/lib/libsimplexmlrpc.tex, and Doc/lib/libxmlrpc.tex)

- I think ParseError should support "nested" exceptions: the original
exception should be included into the ParseError object, in case people
want to know the details of the underlying parser error.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=305470&aid=1360243&group_id=5470