Hello,
xmrpc is not going to be deprecated, it is actually the newer one.
But it is implementation from scratch, no external xmlrpc being used. So far it was implemented as much as it was needed. However, nested structures in replies should be supported. What is exactly the error you get? If there is an issue, it has to be fixed.
I just tested 'sercmd ul.dump' and worked fine, returning:
{
Domain: location
Size: 512
AoRs: {
AoR: 401
HashID: 3325474
Contacts: {
Contact: {
Address: sip:401@192.168.178.22:1024;line=1uxhrhwy
Expires: 3541
Q: 0.000000
Call-ID: 3c267033369e-d3i5csinl2h7
CSeq: 6300
User-Agent: snom370/8.4.35
Received: [not set]
Path: [not set]
State: CS_NEW
Flags: 0
CFlags: 0
Socket: udp:192.168.178.21:5060
Methods: 6111
Ruid: uloc-4fb17657-71d-1
Instance: <urn:uuid:3d1a0962-4751-426f-8492-0004132672E3>
Reg-Id: 1
}
}
}
Stats: {
Records: 1
Max-Slots: 1
}
}
It has lot of inner structures.
Cheers,
Daniel
On 5/14/12 5:14 PM, Jason Penton wrote:
Hi All,
I have just been testing xmlrpc on some of the IMS module RPC functions and got some errors using nested structures. viz "{". Having a quick look through the xmlrpc code show that it doesn't support nested structures in the reply.
I am quite happy to fix this but am surprised that nobody has mentioned this before as I see there are a few modules that use nested replies. Does this maybe mean that XMLRPC is going to be deprecated (not a usual module)?
CheersJason
_______________________________________________ sr-dev mailing list sr-dev@lists.sip-router.org http://lists.sip-router.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sr-dev
-- Daniel-Constantin Mierla - http://www.asipto.com http://twitter.com/#!/miconda - http://www.linkedin.com/in/miconda