All users were logged out of Bugzilla on October 13th, 2018

Move XMLRPC component to web services

UNCONFIRMED
Unassigned

Status

()

UNCONFIRMED
14 years ago
11 months ago

People

(Reporter: seth, Unassigned)

Tracking

Trunk
Points:
---

Firefox Tracking Flags

(Not tracked)

Details

(Reporter)

Description

14 years ago
User-Agent:       Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.7.5) Gecko/20041103 Firefox/1.0RC2
Build Identifier: 

The xml-rpc component (nsXmlRpcClient) should be moved from the XML group to the
Web Services group. It is, after all, designed for web services. It's function
is virtually identical to SOAP, which is listed under web services, and that is
exactly the purpose for which XML-RPC was created.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
I don't know what you mean exactly, could you please elaborate? What needs to
happen?
(Reporter)

Comment 2

14 years ago
XML-RPC bugs all get filed under XML. SOAP bugs all get filed under Web
Services. XML RPC is a web service protocol, not generic xml.

I'm pushing for XMLRPC to be fixed and enhanced. For starters, I think it needs
to be categorized properly.

That's all. Sort of a metabug.
(In reply to comment #2)
> XML-RPC bugs all get filed under XML. SOAP bugs all get filed under Web
> Services. XML RPC is a web service protocol, not generic xml.

Ok, but I don't see any place where we specifically say people need to file
XML-RPC bugs under XML component, rather than Web Services component. This is my
confusion with this report. I still don't know what you want me to do.
(Reporter)

Comment 4

14 years ago
(In reply to comment #3)
> Ok, but I don't see any place where we specifically say people need to file
> XML-RPC bugs under XML component, rather than Web Services component. This is my
> confusion with this report. I still don't know what you want me to do.

Maybe this is a non-issue, but here's what I was thinking.

In the source, xml-rpc is in extensions
<http://lxr.mozilla.org/mozilla/source/extensions/xml-rpc/>, but I think it
should be in Web Services along with SOAP, UDDI, and WSDL.

In bugzilla, all of the XML-RPC bugs are filed under XML, instead of Web
Services. They should be listed as Web Services bugs, just like SOAP, WSDL, or UDDI.

Like I said, maybe this is a non-issue. I'm probably just being anal, and in the
back of my mind I may have been hoping that moving xml-rpc to web services would
remind the right people that there are some serious bugs in nsXmlRpcClient.js.
Some of these bugs have been sitting around for a very long time, but they make
the xml-rpc component almost completely useless.

Comment 5

14 years ago
So you are stepping up to own xml-rpc?

I have no problem with an xml-rpc component in bugzilla, not sure about being
part of webservices.  extensions/webservices already has too much in it (schema
for example).  We build xml-rpc by default right?
(Reporter)

Comment 6

14 years ago
(In reply to comment #5)
> So you are stepping up to own xml-rpc?

I'd certainly consider it. Not really sure what that would entail, frankly,
unless it means fixing stuff myself. That it?

> I have no problem with an xml-rpc component in bugzilla, not sure about being
> part of webservices.  extensions/webservices already has too much in it (schema
> for example). 

But my point is that xml-rpc *is* a web service tool, and that's really all it's
for. It's as much part of web services as is SOAP.

There are lots of words that being with 'm', but Webster decided *not* to file
them under 'q' and 'z', even though it would have been easy. 

>We build xml-rpc by default right?

Yes.
This is an automated message, with ID "auto-resolve01".

This bug has had no comments for a long time. Statistically, we have found that
bug reports that have not been confirmed by a second user after three months are
highly unlikely to be the source of a fix to the code.

While your input is very important to us, our resources are limited and so we
are asking for your help in focussing our efforts. If you can still reproduce
this problem in the latest version of the product (see below for how to obtain a
copy) or, for feature requests, if it's not present in the latest version and
you still believe we should implement it, please visit the URL of this bug
(given at the top of this mail) and add a comment to that effect, giving more
reproduction information if you have it.

If it is not a problem any longer, you need take no action. If this bug is not
changed in any way in the next two weeks, it will be automatically resolved.
Thank you for your help in this matter.

The latest beta releases can be obtained from:
Firefox:     http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/
Thunderbird: http://www.mozilla.org/products/thunderbird/releases/1.5beta1.html
Seamonkey:   http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/
(Reporter)

Comment 8

13 years ago
I still believe that XML-RPC should be classified as a web services component.
Doron seemed to agree with my, but I guess my somewhat cryptic reference to
Webster in my last message threw him off. ;-)

(My point was that the number of components already in web servcies is not a
reason to leave out XML-RPC. XML-RPC is *only* a web services protocol. Period.)
Assignee: xml → nobody
QA Contact: ashshbhatt → xml
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.