RE: Larger than 32bit signed?
Gaetano Giunta <giunta.gaetano <at> sea-aeroportimilano.it>
2006-02-08 15:16:08 GMT
A lot of other useful data types miss from the lib.
NULL for example would make it a breeze to move around stuff gotten out of databases.
But (imho), simplicity is one of the strengths of the spec, rather than a weakness: the core datatypes can be
defined/used in pretty much any language/platform under the sun, and libs are a breeze to implement.
Otoh if you take the basic data types used in SOAP, which tend to be derived from XSD, there are so many that
just deciding which one to pick for a particular variable can be a time-consuming and error-prone process
(19 simple types plus those derived). And I guess many toolkits out there only have very limited support
for many of those types.
If you use the same xmlrpc toolkit on both ends of the communication, you migth be lucky: the toolkit in
question could possibly make use of the maximum native integer type available on the platform, and have no
problem in receiving or sending 8-byte integers.
If the toolkit in question did not support 8-byte integers, yould could of course hack it into the toolkit.
Or just use a string value for that particular bigint data field.
If you are looking forward to real interop, then you are out of luck: the spec has been frozen since about 1999
and there are very little chances that a spec extension, whoever proposed it, would be implemented by a
large part of the existing toolkits (I can count more than a dozen tolkits for php alone...).
Just my 2C
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-rpc <at> yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:xml-rpc <at> yahoogroups.com]On Behalf
> Of Mark Ellzey
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 3:32 PM
> To: xml-rpc <at> yahoogroups.com