(no subject)

[hyuri]

you want to know why nobody uses the XML-RPC interface for their LJ clients? it’s a pain in the ass, that’s why.

granted, once I’m done tying it all together it should be much easier to add stuff, but damn! the flat protocol is really simple: convert everything to a string (with the handy‑dandy ToString() method everything has) and run it through HttpUtility.UrlEncode(). the XML-RPC libraries aren’t so easy to get started. I’d probably still be beating my head against the wall if I hadn’t chanced across ljArchive.

Comments

[hyuri.livejournal.com]

Well sure, it’s real easy with a “typeless” language like Perl or Python. Try it in, say, C#, with XML-RPC.NET (http://www.xml-rpc.net). That’s what I’m working on. Fun, it is not. Easy, it is not. Quick, simple, small; it is none. A royal pain in the ass, it most certainly is.

[rizen.livejournal.com]

Actually, the fact that it's typeless isn't what helps here. What helps is the dynamic nature of the language. The object and its methods and members can be constructed at runtime.

This of course demands the question, "If C# makes it so hard, why are you using it?" Programming languages are tools. You wouldn't try driving a screw with a hacksaw, would you?

[hyuri.livejournal.com]

Because LJ.NET is written in C#. LJ.NET is a client I like to use, and C# is generally an easy language to handle. I’ve given some thought to checking out XmlRpcCs, but I’ve already put a number of hours into XML-RPC.NET. Kinda depends on whether I can figure out where this damned null reference is coming from...