own data: where to hook?

[Alejandro Rivero <al...@gmail.com>]

I can not decide about where to hook my own functions.

Given that the gadget has, or will have, some different ways to
communicate with container data, the first logic is to hang inside
shinding with a whole new GadgetDataHandler. I guess this is the
preferred method,

But it could be possible instead to hang separate People, Data and
Activities services from the standard  OpenSocialDataHandler.

On a different approach, I could intercept the http: call to
gadget/socialdata and answer on my way.

Or I could replace the javascript batchrequest.js to work it in a
different protocol against any other server.

Or I could replace the javascript jsoncontainer.js to do a completely
different datacontainer.

Have I listed all the possibilities? Well, I would provide static data
too, via the xml of the samplecontainer...

Alejandro

Re: own data: where to hook?

[Cassie <do...@apache.org>]

I think you have definitely listed all of the possibilities. The goal right
now is for you to be able to provide different implementations of the
People, Data and Activities Service interfaces which allows us to share as
much code as possible. And then, after that, to add your own handler for any
site specific stuff you may need.

Let us know if the current apis are not sufficient though, this whole thing
is a work in progress to improve opensocial support within Shindig.

- Cassie


On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 2:48 PM, Alejandro Rivero <al...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I can not decide about where to hook my own functions.
>
> Given that the gadget has, or will have, some different ways to
> communicate with container data, the first logic is to hang inside
> shinding with a whole new GadgetDataHandler. I guess this is the
> preferred method,
>
> But it could be possible instead to hang separate People, Data and
> Activities services from the standard  OpenSocialDataHandler.
>
> On a different approach, I could intercept the http: call to
> gadget/socialdata and answer on my way.
>
> Or I could replace the javascript batchrequest.js to work it in a
> different protocol against any other server.
>
> Or I could replace the javascript jsoncontainer.js to do a completely
> different datacontainer.
>
> Have I listed all the possibilities? Well, I would provide static data
> too, via the xml of the samplecontainer...
>
> Alejandro
>