You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shindig.apache.org by Evan Gilbert <ui...@google.com> on 2008/09/25 21:04:20 UTC
Re: [opensocial-and-gadgets-spec] Re: [os-templates] Declarative Data
Definition - requirements
I was hoping not to get down to this level of detail yet - we have 6 other
requirements to discuss and this discussion keeps overwhelming all other
threads.
I feel pretty strongly that the only actual requirement is a 1:1 mapping to
REST/RPC. We might decide to have this be the identity mapping, but that can
be part of the "what's the best way to implement the requirements"
discussion.
Evan
On 9/25/08, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Scott Seely <SS...@myspace.com> wrote:
>
>> It looks like the OSML spec has the person/people stuff figured out.
>> For person/people, there is some information at
>> http://wiki.opensocial-templates.org/index.php?title=OpenSocial_Markup#.3Cos:PersonRequest.3E
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>> <os:PersonRequest key="Viewer" id="VIEWER"
>> fields="name,id,thumbnailUrl,books"/>
>>
>>
>>
>> <os:PeopleRequest key="PagedFriends" idSpec="VIEWER_FRIENDS" page="2"
>> pageSize="20"/>
>>
>>
>>
>> We wouldn't need a new syntax for Person, People, Activities, or AppData
>> as there is a different mapping independent of REST/XRDS.
>>
>>
>>
>> Does this solve the problem at hand? Is there a shortcoming in this
>> solution that I'm not seeing?
>>
>
> The problem with this solution is that it's a 6th mapping for social data
> (JSON-RPC, XML-RPC, JSON-REST, ATOM-REST, javascript APIs, and now this).
>
> That's not really reasonable to expect developers to learn, especially
> since different sites are going to support different things. Many people are
> already frustrated at inconsistencies between implementations.
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<op...@googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
Re: [opensocial-and-gadgets-spec] Re: [os-templates] Declarative Data Definition - requirements
Posted by Louis Ryan <lr...@google.com>.
I agree with all the requirements. I also feel strongly that we need 1:1 and
I think that should be achievable.
On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Evan Gilbert <ui...@google.com> wrote:
> I was hoping not to get down to this level of detail yet - we have 6 other
> requirements to discuss and this discussion keeps overwhelming all other
> threads.
>
> I feel pretty strongly that the only actual requirement is a 1:1 mapping to
> REST/RPC. We might decide to have this be the identity mapping, but that can
> be part of the "what's the best way to implement the requirements"
> discussion.
>
> Evan
>
>
> On 9/25/08, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Scott Seely <SS...@myspace.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like the OSML spec has the person/people stuff figured out.
>>> For person/people, there is some information at
>>> http://wiki.opensocial-templates.org/index.php?title=OpenSocial_Markup#.3Cos:PersonRequest.3E
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <os:PersonRequest key="Viewer" id="VIEWER"
>>> fields="name,id,thumbnailUrl,books"/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <os:PeopleRequest key="PagedFriends" idSpec="VIEWER_FRIENDS" page="2"
>>> pageSize="20"/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We wouldn't need a new syntax for Person, People, Activities, or AppData
>>> as there is a different mapping independent of REST/XRDS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this solve the problem at hand? Is there a shortcoming in this
>>> solution that I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>
>> The problem with this solution is that it's a 6th mapping for social data
>> (JSON-RPC, XML-RPC, JSON-REST, ATOM-REST, javascript APIs, and now this).
>>
>> That's not really reasonable to expect developers to learn, especially
>> since different sites are going to support different things. Many people are
>> already frustrated at inconsistencies between implementations.
>>
>>
>>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<op...@googlegroups.com>
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
Re: [opensocial-and-gadgets-spec] Re: [os-templates] Declarative Data
Definition - requirements
Posted by Evan Gilbert <ui...@google.com>.
Just to clarify, 1:1 mapping can mean any of the following things:
1. REST URL format (os:MakeRequest href="/people/@me")
2. Key/value params in URL format (os:MakeRequest
href="/people?person=@me"), very similar to 1
3. attribute/value pairs in XML element (os:PersonRequest person="@me')
4. JSON blob in XML (os:PersonRequest method="person" params="{person:
@me}">
etc...
I have strong opinions on which alternatives are better, but I think this is
a tangential discusison to the requirements.
On 9/25/08, Evan Gilbert <ui...@google.com> wrote:
>
> I was hoping not to get down to this level of detail yet - we have 6 other
> requirements to discuss and this discussion keeps overwhelming all other
> threads.
>
> I feel pretty strongly that the only actual requirement is a 1:1 mapping to
> REST/RPC. We might decide to have this be the identity mapping, but that can
> be part of the "what's the best way to implement the requirements"
> discussion.
>
> Evan
>
> On 9/25/08, Kevin Brown <et...@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 8:29 PM, Scott Seely <SS...@myspace.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like the OSML spec has the person/people stuff figured out.
>>> For person/people, there is some information at
>>> http://wiki.opensocial-templates.org/index.php?title=OpenSocial_Markup#.3Cos:PersonRequest.3E
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <os:PersonRequest key="Viewer" id="VIEWER"
>>> fields="name,id,thumbnailUrl,books"/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <os:PeopleRequest key="PagedFriends" idSpec="VIEWER_FRIENDS" page="2"
>>> pageSize="20"/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We wouldn't need a new syntax for Person, People, Activities, or AppData
>>> as there is a different mapping independent of REST/XRDS.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Does this solve the problem at hand? Is there a shortcoming in this
>>> solution that I'm not seeing?
>>>
>>
>> The problem with this solution is that it's a 6th mapping for social data
>> (JSON-RPC, XML-RPC, JSON-REST, ATOM-REST, javascript APIs, and now this).
>>
>> That's not really reasonable to expect developers to learn, especially
>> since different sites are going to support different things. Many people are
>> already frustrated at inconsistencies between implementations.
>>
>> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec@googlegroups.com
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> opensocial-and-gadgets-spec+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<op...@googlegroups.com>
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en
>> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>>
>>
>