You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shindig.apache.org by Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> on 2008/01/26 03:11:44 UTC
Surfaces vs. views?
Cassie,
Just saw your svn checkin to /features/views..
Is this code a replacement for Surfaces? I guess it makes sense since
that capability is not opensocial dependent.
#More info on these changes would be appreciated. Thanks!
--
Paul Lindner
hi5 Architect
plindner@hi5.com
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by Cassie <do...@google.com>.
Awesome, I'll get to implementing right away... I think it should be pretty
easy... (although i'm sure i'm overlooking something!)
- Cassie
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 1:07 PM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:54:34PM -0800, Cassie wrote:
> >
> > This versioning of the reference though, that is completely shindig, and
> we
> > can definitely do it. That is my fault for thinking we could update to
> > 0.7quickly. (it should be pretty trivial for the container to do)
>
> I'd like to get people to 0.7 quickly too, however we now have some
> significant investment in 0.6 surfaces support, and will have to be
> careful in how we deploy this.
>
> > The only thing that sucks about this is that the code is 99% the same,
> so we
> > are going to have nearly duplicate copies around. Also, how many
> versions
> > back should we support?
> >
> > Something that I've been thinking about is possible just a
> > opensocial6to7.jsfile. This js file will just map all of the old calls
> > to the new ones. (so
> > opensocial.makeRequest would be defined to just point to the new method)
> >
> > I like this a lot for many reasons. 1, we don't have duplicate code! 2,
> > anybody can just drop in this upgrade js file on their site to support
> > multiple versions. 3, if a container doesn't support the old version a
> > gadget can import the file themseleves. 4, it gives developers a very
> clear
> > code based guide to updating their gadget to 0.7 and beyond.
> >
> > We would have one of these files per version change (6-7, 7-8 etc)
>
> If I understand what you're saying
>
> * opensocial-reference-0.7 would depend on opensocial-reference
> * opensocial-reference-0.6 would depend on opensocial-reference,
> plus have a compatibility shim calls in feature.xml
>
> I like this idea.
>
> I'll go forth and create a shindig issue on this...
>
> --
> Paul Lindner
> hi5 Architect
> plindner@hi5.com
>
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com>.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:54:34PM -0800, Cassie wrote:
>
> This versioning of the reference though, that is completely shindig, and we
> can definitely do it. That is my fault for thinking we could update to
> 0.7quickly. (it should be pretty trivial for the container to do)
I'd like to get people to 0.7 quickly too, however we now have some
significant investment in 0.6 surfaces support, and will have to be
careful in how we deploy this.
> The only thing that sucks about this is that the code is 99% the same, so we
> are going to have nearly duplicate copies around. Also, how many versions
> back should we support?
>
> Something that I've been thinking about is possible just a
> opensocial6to7.jsfile. This js file will just map all of the old calls
> to the new ones. (so
> opensocial.makeRequest would be defined to just point to the new method)
>
> I like this a lot for many reasons. 1, we don't have duplicate code! 2,
> anybody can just drop in this upgrade js file on their site to support
> multiple versions. 3, if a container doesn't support the old version a
> gadget can import the file themseleves. 4, it gives developers a very clear
> code based guide to updating their gadget to 0.7 and beyond.
>
> We would have one of these files per version change (6-7, 7-8 etc)
If I understand what you're saying
* opensocial-reference-0.7 would depend on opensocial-reference
* opensocial-reference-0.6 would depend on opensocial-reference,
plus have a compatibility shim calls in feature.xml
I like this idea.
I'll go forth and create a shindig issue on this...
--
Paul Lindner
hi5 Architect
plindner@hi5.com
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by Bruno Bowden <br...@google.com>.
Good idea Cassie.
You could make the feature for the old opensocial api depend on the latest
version and include that along with a small wrapper file you're talking
about. This would allow you to keep the latest OpenSocial code as clean as
possible, relegating legacy support to a separate file.
On Jan 29, 2008 12:54 PM, Cassie <do...@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:20:08PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
> > > On Jan 29, 2008 11:41 AM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > So are surfaces gone gone gone? I see they've been totally stripped
> > > > out of the 0.7 spec, and now have been removed from the Shindig
> > > > OpenSocial-Reference module.
> > > >
> > > > Can we bring them back and at least deprecate them for 0.7 and
> remove
> > > > in 0.8?
> > >
> > >
> > > They're not gone, they've just moved to gadgets core. gadgets.views is
> > what
> > > you're looking for (
> > >
> > >http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/reference/gadgets.views.html).
> >
> > Yes, I know about this.
> >
> > How about I rephrase my request:
> >
> > "Please reimplement the 0.6 surfaces API for 0.7 on top of the new
> > views feature, marking the API deprecated in the process."
> >
> > > John (fargo) is working on getting the shindig implementation
> > > working correctly.
> >
> > As we try to get developers to upgrade to 0.7 it would be helpful to
> > allow a cleaner upward upgrade path by deprecating functionality
> > before removing it. At the very least javascript calls should not
> > bomb, causing the entire app to die.
> >
> > Of course another option is to freeze opensocial-reference for each
> > API release. Perhaps we could create seperate features directories for
> >
> > opensocial-reference-0.6
> > opensocial-reference-0.7,
> >
> > instead of just 'opensocial-reference'
> >
>
> Up till 0.7 we were not doing any clean deprecation management because the
> apis needed to change so rapidly. From 0.7 on (because containers are
> going
> to start having fully public launches) we will be managing this more
> cleanly. But, anyway, that is a spec issue :)
>
> This versioning of the reference though, that is completely shindig, and
> we
> can definitely do it. That is my fault for thinking we could update to
> 0.7quickly. (it should be pretty trivial for the container to do)
>
> The only thing that sucks about this is that the code is 99% the same, so
> we
> are going to have nearly duplicate copies around. Also, how many versions
> back should we support?
>
> Something that I've been thinking about is possible just a
> opensocial6to7.jsfile. This js file will just map all of the old calls
> to the new ones. (so
> opensocial.makeRequest would be defined to just point to the new method)
>
> I like this a lot for many reasons. 1, we don't have duplicate code! 2,
> anybody can just drop in this upgrade js file on their site to support
> multiple versions. 3, if a container doesn't support the old version a
> gadget can import the file themseleves. 4, it gives developers a very
> clear
> code based guide to updating their gadget to 0.7 and beyond.
>
> We would have one of these files per version change (6-7, 7-8 etc)
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > Right now developers are complaining that we're breaking things in
> > every release, and this just makes it harder to get traction with
> > these people.
> >
> > --
> > Paul Lindner
> > hi5 Architect
> > plindner@hi5.com
> >
>
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by Cassie <do...@google.com>.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:39 PM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:20:08PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 2008 11:41 AM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
> >
> > > So are surfaces gone gone gone? I see they've been totally stripped
> > > out of the 0.7 spec, and now have been removed from the Shindig
> > > OpenSocial-Reference module.
> > >
> > > Can we bring them back and at least deprecate them for 0.7 and remove
> > > in 0.8?
> >
> >
> > They're not gone, they've just moved to gadgets core. gadgets.views is
> what
> > you're looking for (
> >
> >http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/reference/gadgets.views.html).
>
> Yes, I know about this.
>
> How about I rephrase my request:
>
> "Please reimplement the 0.6 surfaces API for 0.7 on top of the new
> views feature, marking the API deprecated in the process."
>
> > John (fargo) is working on getting the shindig implementation
> > working correctly.
>
> As we try to get developers to upgrade to 0.7 it would be helpful to
> allow a cleaner upward upgrade path by deprecating functionality
> before removing it. At the very least javascript calls should not
> bomb, causing the entire app to die.
>
> Of course another option is to freeze opensocial-reference for each
> API release. Perhaps we could create seperate features directories for
>
> opensocial-reference-0.6
> opensocial-reference-0.7,
>
> instead of just 'opensocial-reference'
>
Up till 0.7 we were not doing any clean deprecation management because the
apis needed to change so rapidly. From 0.7 on (because containers are going
to start having fully public launches) we will be managing this more
cleanly. But, anyway, that is a spec issue :)
This versioning of the reference though, that is completely shindig, and we
can definitely do it. That is my fault for thinking we could update to
0.7quickly. (it should be pretty trivial for the container to do)
The only thing that sucks about this is that the code is 99% the same, so we
are going to have nearly duplicate copies around. Also, how many versions
back should we support?
Something that I've been thinking about is possible just a
opensocial6to7.jsfile. This js file will just map all of the old calls
to the new ones. (so
opensocial.makeRequest would be defined to just point to the new method)
I like this a lot for many reasons. 1, we don't have duplicate code! 2,
anybody can just drop in this upgrade js file on their site to support
multiple versions. 3, if a container doesn't support the old version a
gadget can import the file themseleves. 4, it gives developers a very clear
code based guide to updating their gadget to 0.7 and beyond.
We would have one of these files per version change (6-7, 7-8 etc)
What do you think?
>
>
> Right now developers are complaining that we're breaking things in
> every release, and this just makes it harder to get traction with
> these people.
>
> --
> Paul Lindner
> hi5 Architect
> plindner@hi5.com
>
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com>.
On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 12:20:08PM -0800, Kevin Brown wrote:
> On Jan 29, 2008 11:41 AM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
>
> > So are surfaces gone gone gone? I see they've been totally stripped
> > out of the 0.7 spec, and now have been removed from the Shindig
> > OpenSocial-Reference module.
> >
> > Can we bring them back and at least deprecate them for 0.7 and remove
> > in 0.8?
>
>
> They're not gone, they've just moved to gadgets core. gadgets.views is what
> you're looking for (
>
>http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/reference/gadgets.views.html).
Yes, I know about this.
How about I rephrase my request:
"Please reimplement the 0.6 surfaces API for 0.7 on top of the new
views feature, marking the API deprecated in the process."
> John (fargo) is working on getting the shindig implementation
> working correctly.
As we try to get developers to upgrade to 0.7 it would be helpful to
allow a cleaner upward upgrade path by deprecating functionality
before removing it. At the very least javascript calls should not
bomb, causing the entire app to die.
Of course another option is to freeze opensocial-reference for each
API release. Perhaps we could create seperate features directories for
opensocial-reference-0.6
opensocial-reference-0.7,
instead of just 'opensocial-reference'
Right now developers are complaining that we're breaking things in
every release, and this just makes it harder to get traction with
these people.
--
Paul Lindner
hi5 Architect
plindner@hi5.com
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by Kevin Brown <et...@apache.org>.
On Jan 29, 2008 11:41 AM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
> So are surfaces gone gone gone? I see they've been totally stripped
> out of the 0.7 spec, and now have been removed from the Shindig
> OpenSocial-Reference module.
>
> Can we bring them back and at least deprecate them for 0.7 and remove
> in 0.8?
They're not gone, they've just moved to gadgets core. gadgets.views is what
you're looking for (
http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/reference/gadgets.views.html). John
(fargo) is working on getting the shindig implementation working correctly.
~Kevin
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com>.
So are surfaces gone gone gone? I see they've been totally stripped
out of the 0.7 spec, and now have been removed from the Shindig
OpenSocial-Reference module.
Can we bring them back and at least deprecate them for 0.7 and remove
in 0.8?
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 10:04:35AM -0800, Cassie wrote:
> Yup, John is right. You can check out the new specs which document this
> here:
> http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial/docs/0.7/spec.html
> http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/spec.html
>
> - Cassie
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 6:17 PM, John Hjelmstad <fa...@google.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Paul:
> >
> > Yes, views is the new general-purpose gadgets notion on top of which
> > surfaces will be built. We'll be documenting this significantly in the
> > near
> > future.
> >
> > Best,
> > John
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Cassie,
> > >
> > > Just saw your svn checkin to /features/views..
> > >
> > > Is this code a replacement for Surfaces? I guess it makes sense since
> > > that capability is not opensocial dependent.
> > >
> > > #More info on these changes would be appreciated. Thanks!
> > >
> > >
> >
--
Paul Lindner
hi5 Architect
plindner@hi5.com
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by Cassie <do...@apache.org>.
Yup, John is right. You can check out the new specs which document this
here:
http://code.google.com/apis/opensocial/docs/0.7/spec.html
http://code.google.com/apis/gadgets/docs/spec.html
- Cassie
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 6:17 PM, John Hjelmstad <fa...@google.com> wrote:
> Hi Paul:
>
> Yes, views is the new general-purpose gadgets notion on top of which
> surfaces will be built. We'll be documenting this significantly in the
> near
> future.
>
> Best,
> John
>
> On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
>
> > Cassie,
> >
> > Just saw your svn checkin to /features/views..
> >
> > Is this code a replacement for Surfaces? I guess it makes sense since
> > that capability is not opensocial dependent.
> >
> > #More info on these changes would be appreciated. Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > Paul Lindner
> > hi5 Architect
> > plindner@hi5.com
> >
>
Re: Surfaces vs. views?
Posted by John Hjelmstad <fa...@google.com>.
Hi Paul:
Yes, views is the new general-purpose gadgets notion on top of which
surfaces will be built. We'll be documenting this significantly in the near
future.
Best,
John
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Paul Lindner <pl...@hi5.com> wrote:
> Cassie,
>
> Just saw your svn checkin to /features/views..
>
> Is this code a replacement for Surfaces? I guess it makes sense since
> that capability is not opensocial dependent.
>
> #More info on these changes would be appreciated. Thanks!
>
> --
> Paul Lindner
> hi5 Architect
> plindner@hi5.com
>