On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 15:54:12 UTC, Pavel Kirienko wrote:
> On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 15:37:16 UTC, ilya-stromberg wrote:
>> On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 15:12:24 UTC, Pavel Kirienko wrote:
>>> So, the question is: shall I make a pull request for xmlrpc-d with no HTTP server included? Is there anyone who have a solid HTTP server which is good enough for the standard library? We could cooperate.
>>
>> As I know, the Vibe.d is good:
>> https://github.com/rejectedsoftware/vibe.d
>>
>> But I don't know if it will be useful for you.
>
> I know vibe.d, but it does not seem to be going into phobos, does it?
>
>
>> I should warn - it won't be easy and is likely to require lot of work from contributor. Recent trend in Phobos contribution is to require good integration with existing modules and approaches - you can have a look at `std.serialization` threads to see what Jacob is going to go through to get to voting.
>
> Yeah it is not so easy I know, and I'm not sure I can make time for that right now. However, if someone wants to volunteer I'd glad to help.

I don't think a real server is needed here. A simple listen on a port is sufficient.

02-Sep-2013 20:41, Flamaros пишет:
> On Monday, 2 September 2013 at 15:54:12 UTC, Pavel Kirienko wrote:

> I don't think a real server is needed here. A simple listen on a port is
> sufficient.


Well I don't expect that to pass review :)
-- 
Dmitry Olshansky

Guys, I decided to stay away from phobos integration at least until it has some HTTP server out of the box.
Anyway this decision does not make xmlrpc-d less usable. :)

On Tuesday, 3 September 2013 at 10:28:56 UTC, Pavel Kirienko wrote:
> Guys, I decided to stay away from phobos integration at least until it has some HTTP server out of the box.
> Anyway this decision does not make xmlrpc-d less usable. :)

You can try to integrate in Phobos only xmlrpc-d client.
It can be useful for integration whith 3rd-party XML RPC servises.