Apache XML-RPC 3.0 - No thanks
by Dejan Bosanac
The thing is that up until version 3.x of Apache library,
Hashtablewere only Java classes that could be used for transferring collections (
<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 (
Objectamong them) as XML-RPC types. This is where surprises started to pop up.
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.
The fact that Apache XML-RPC contains classes like RequestFactoryFactory should make it clear that the whole thing is completely overdesigned.
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.
|Apache XML-RPC is too way complicated. It is crazy.|
|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!|
|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..|