Apache XML-RPC 3.0 - No thanks

by Dejan Bosanac

I have this project that started years ago and still uses old Apache 1.1 version of the XML-RPC library. A few days ago I needed to add an extra functionality to the services it exposes. The underlying API for the new service works a lot with array of objects which is not friendly with that version of XML-RPC library.
The thing is that up until version 3.x of Apache library, Vector and Hashtable were only Java classes that could be used for transferring collections (<array> and <struct> XML-RPC types respectively). So naturally, I thought this was an ideal opportunity to upgrade to 3.x version, which is much better in handling various Java constructs (Object[] among them) as XML-RPC types. This is where surprises started to pop up.

8 Comments

Stefan Arentz
2006-12-01 11:19:43
The fact that Apache XML-RPC contains classes like RequestFactoryFactory should make it clear that the whole thing is completely overdesigned. I've had nothing but trouble with the 3.0 release and ended up switching to http://xmlrpc.sf.net which provides the same functionality with a much cleaner API and no complexity.


S.

cooper
2006-12-01 18:19:08
The fact that Apache XML-RPC contains classes like RequestFactoryFactory should make it clear that the whole thing is completely overdesigned.


ROFL. Meet Axis2!


Really, while I haven't done any XML-RPC work in a while, what was wrong with the old Helma implementation that required a ground-up rewrite?

Adam
2006-12-06 11:21:33
Couldn't agree more. I was using the version 1.x version, had few problems. The 3.0 branch is pretty much unusable, for the reasons you've described and more.


I've switched to REST and haven't looked back. It was a pain to convert all my service methods, but I'm happy I did.

rhoerning
2006-12-19 07:26:26
signed...
techie
2006-12-25 07:02:05
Apache XML-RPC is too way complicated. It is crazy.
Amit
2007-01-02 21:56:57
I found it very odd that this version of XML-RPC implementation does not support registering objects as handlers... glad I found this site! Was going nuts otherwise!
moysha
2007-02-17 08:17:49
gandon
Jeryl Cook
2008-01-26 14:01:18
I used XML-RPC a few years ago with Spring with no problem...i just had a requirement to implement XML-PRC, download the new version XML-RPC 3.1...and is frustrated how they made this once simple API cumbersome to implemnet(the client side isnt that bad however......first i thought it was just me missing somthing.. anway the XML-RPC implementation at http://xmlrpc.sf.net , is very clean and i am using it now also..