[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DotGNU]Contribution to DotGNU

From: D. Hoxha
Subject: Re: [DotGNU]Contribution to DotGNU
Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:43:17 MET

About xmlrpc, phpWebApp does not address such interoperation, because
I didn't know what it is, and I still don't know. But I think that
there isn't any reason for not suporting it, and of course any idea
or code contribution would be welcomed.

About the place of phpWebApp in dotgnu,
I think that every web service is actually a web application (but the
contrary is not true, a web application may not be a web service, e.g.
I have developed an intranet web application, the users of which are the
employees of the company itself, and it offers no service to anybody).
Since phpWebApp is a good tool for developing web applications, it is
also a good tool for developing web services.


> First, php can be a wonderful tool for writing and deploying web services=
> =20
> quickly.  There had been some issues in the past with how free php 4 vs p=
> hp 3=20
> is, but I see nothing wrong with having a freely licensed php web service=
> s=20
> framework and I certainly would encourage it's active and continued=20
> development. =20
> The question of where it fits into dotgnu specifically is a bit harder to=
> =20
> address.  In dotgnu, there is a desire for interoperation of web services=
> =2E =20
> One reason we have phpGroupware in dotgnu is because they standardize aro=
> und=20
> xmlrpc.  I am not sure if phpWebApp addresses such interoperation as well=
> ,=20
> since I have not yet looked at it as yet, but I plan to do so.  However, =
> if=20
> the question were asked more broadly, in that could there be a very gener=
> al=20
> purpose GPL licensed php web services framework in dotgnu, I personally t=
> hink=20
> that question is yes.  I think you will find people have some ideas of wh=
> at=20
> they might wish to have such a framework do and would likely contribute c=
> ode=20
> to make such a framework work better in terms of creating interoperable=20
> services. =20
> As for the question of moving the project to Savannah, and what to do wit=
> h=20
> SourceForge, I would suggest leaving the existing (LGPL licensed)=20
> distribution on SourceForge, since they are a tad slow in deleting projec=
> ts=20
> anyway, but put up information on your SF site that the project is being=20
> re-introduced on Savannah, that it is now under GPL, and that it is being=
> =20
> activily maintained from Savannah.=20
> David

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]