[#10193] String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...>

Hi,

41 messages 2007/02/05
[#10197] Re: String.ord — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2007/02/06

Hi,

[#10198] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[#10199] Re: String.ord — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...> 2007/02/06

David Flanagan wrote:

[#10200] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Daniel Berger wrote:

[#10208] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10213] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/06

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10215] Re: String.ord — "Nikolai Weibull" <now@...> 2007/02/06

On 2/6/07, David Flanagan <david@davidflanagan.com> wrote:

[#10216] Re: String.ord — David Flanagan <david@...> 2007/02/07

Nikolai Weibull wrote:

[#10288] Socket library should support abstract unix sockets — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8597, was opened at 2007-02-13 16:10

12 messages 2007/02/13

[#10321] File.basename fails on Windows root paths — <noreply@...>

Bugs item #8676, was opened at 2007-02-15 10:09

11 messages 2007/02/15

[#10323] Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...>

Some of the Ruby code used by TextMate makes use of xmlrpc/

31 messages 2007/02/15
[#10324] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — "Berger, Daniel" <Daniel.Berger@...> 2007/02/15

> -----Original Message-----

[#10326] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/15

On Feb 15, 2007, at 1:29 PM, Berger, Daniel wrote:

[#10342] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

While I am complaining about xmlrpc, we have another issue. It's

[#10343] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — Alex Young <alex@...> 2007/02/16

James Edward Gray II wrote:

[#10344] Re: Trouble with xmlrpc — James Edward Gray II <james@...> 2007/02/16

On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:

Re: Trouble with xmlrpc

From: James Edward Gray II <james@...>
Date: 2007-02-16 23:31:32 UTC
List: ruby-core #10352
On Feb 16, 2007, at 5:08 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:

> On Feb 16, 2007, at 4:27 PM, Alex Young wrote:
>
>> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>>> On Feb 16, 2007, at 12:08 PM, Alex Young wrote:
>>>> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>>> but (much worse) I have no idea how to properly implement that.   
>>> So, instead of teaching xmlrpc how to read randomly formatted  
>>> documents and interpret arbitrary time-zone rules from servers  
>>> that don't generally provide either, I'm voting we chicken out  
>>> and send UTC.  ;)
>> How would we opt out of that when we know the server's set to  
>> GMT-5, say?  Pre-shift the time value in the opposite direction?   
>> Or would we be able to configure the timezone in an XMLRPC::Client  
>> object such that it defaults to UTC?
>
> The time-zone should probably be configurable, yes, to support the  
> wildly open spec.  I just think UTC is a much saner default than a  
> local value the server can't possibly know.

Ah, I think I just got what you are saying Alex.

Since we pass in the Time object, it is currently configurable.   
Converting it to UTC rules out the cases where a server provides  
rules for us to follow, which means we have to give a way to stop the  
conversion.  Then it is two steps instead of the current one.

I get it now and I think you are right.  Thanks for being patient  
with me on this issue.

OK, my second point aside, is there any reason we shouldn't handle  
DateTime as we do Time, instead of the current Date handling which  
drops information?  I really feel we should fix that at least.

James Edward Gray II

In This Thread