[#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: 2007-02-20 13:53:20 UTC
List: ruby-core #10377
On Feb 17, 2007, at 2:59 AM, Alex Young wrote:

> James Edward Gray II wrote:
>> 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.
> Yes please!  I was a little surprised to find that it wasn't  
> handled already.

Below is a patch for this issue.

CHANGELOG:

Adding DateTime support to xmlrpc.

James Edward Gray II

Attachments (1)

xmlrpc_datetime.patch (381 Bytes, text/x-diff)
Index: lib/xmlrpc/create.rb
===================================================================
--- lib/xmlrpc/create.rb	(revision 11805)
+++ lib/xmlrpc/create.rb	(working copy)
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@
 	    @writer.ele("data", *a)
 	  )
 
-	when Time, Date
+	when Time, Date, DateTime
 	  @writer.tag("dateTime.iso8601", param.strftime("%Y%m%dT%H:%M:%S"))  
 
 	when XMLRPC::DateTime

In This Thread