You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@shindig.apache.org by Marshall Shi <sh...@cn.ibm.com> on 2012/12/04 03:53:54 UTC
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m.)
Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
Description
-------
- The swfobject.opt.js should be removed from source code.
- The swfobject.js code format need some refinement to align with Shindig JS code guideline.
This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
Diffs
-----
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
Testing
-------
Done
Thanks,
Marshall Shi
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Dan Dumont <dd...@us.ibm.com>.
> On Jan. 9, 2013, 3:11 p.m., Dan Dumont wrote:
> > Ship It!
Committed r1430886. Please close this review.
- Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review15186
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 18, 2012, 7:22 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 18, 2012, 7:22 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> swfobject feature is third party resource and is not used in any shindig core features, propose to move it to extras.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/features.txt 1374902
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/feature.xml PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/swfobject.js PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE 1373213
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/features.txt 1395438
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/feature.xml 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/pom.xml 1406188
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Dan Dumont <dd...@us.ibm.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review15186
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Dan Dumont
On Dec. 18, 2012, 7:22 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 18, 2012, 7:22 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> swfobject feature is third party resource and is not used in any shindig core features, propose to move it to extras.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/features.txt 1374902
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/feature.xml PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/swfobject.js PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE 1373213
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/features.txt 1395438
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/feature.xml 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/pom.xml 1406188
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Ryan Baxter <rb...@gmail.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review14912
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ship it!
Ship It!
- Ryan Baxter
On Dec. 18, 2012, 7:22 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 18, 2012, 7:22 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> swfobject feature is third party resource and is not used in any shindig core features, propose to move it to extras.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/features.txt 1374902
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/feature.xml PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/swfobject.js PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js PRE-CREATION
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE 1373213
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/features.txt 1395438
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/feature.xml 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/pom.xml 1406188
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Marshall Shi <sh...@cn.ibm.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Dec. 18, 2012, 7:22 a.m.)
Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
Changes
-------
Move swfobject feature to extras.
Description (updated)
-------
swfobject feature is third party resource and is not used in any shindig core features, propose to move it to extras.
This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
Diffs (updated)
-----
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/pom.xml 1401141
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE PRE-CREATION
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/features.txt 1374902
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/feature.xml PRE-CREATION
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/swfobject.js PRE-CREATION
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/extras/src/main/javascript/features-extras/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js PRE-CREATION
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/appended-resources/META-INF/LICENSE 1373213
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/features.txt 1395438
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/feature.xml 1383189
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/pom.xml 1406188
Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
Testing
-------
Done
Thanks,
Marshall Shi
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Dan Dumont <dd...@us.ibm.com>.
> On Dec. 12, 2012, 7:20 p.m., Dan Dumont wrote:
> > Looking this over again, I'm not sure what to do here. This looks like a library that we've gotten from the project http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/
> > They wouldn't have code to our standards, and I'm not sure if we should modify it (which would make tracking changes a bit more difficult).
> >
> > It also appears that we have copied their pre-optimized file as a .opt file so that our compiler can skip that step... it might be optimized better than the basic optimization we perform during build.
> >
> > Can someone else comment on what we should do here?
> > Paul?
>
> Paul Lindner wrote:
> I'm fine either way. swfobject.js hasn't been updated since 2009 so I'm not concerned with upstream integration.
>
> Dan Dumont wrote:
> Ok. Marshall, is there a compelling reason (aside from general clean up) to make this change?
> I think I'd rather leave it as-is if there's no other reason to change it, since it is 3rd party code.
>
> Marshall Shi wrote:
> No I don't have other compelling reasons. If this is an external project. Would make more sense to move it out from shindig core feature to the extra features?
I think that probably makes sense. Anyone else care to comment?
- Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review14365
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> - The swfobject.opt.js should be removed from source code.
> - The swfobject.js code format need some refinement to align with Shindig JS code guideline.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Henry Saputra <hs...@apache.org>.
> On Dec. 12, 2012, 7:20 p.m., Dan Dumont wrote:
> > Looking this over again, I'm not sure what to do here. This looks like a library that we've gotten from the project http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/
> > They wouldn't have code to our standards, and I'm not sure if we should modify it (which would make tracking changes a bit more difficult).
> >
> > It also appears that we have copied their pre-optimized file as a .opt file so that our compiler can skip that step... it might be optimized better than the basic optimization we perform during build.
> >
> > Can someone else comment on what we should do here?
> > Paul?
>
> Paul Lindner wrote:
> I'm fine either way. swfobject.js hasn't been updated since 2009 so I'm not concerned with upstream integration.
>
> Dan Dumont wrote:
> Ok. Marshall, is there a compelling reason (aside from general clean up) to make this change?
> I think I'd rather leave it as-is if there's no other reason to change it, since it is 3rd party code.
>
> Marshall Shi wrote:
> No I don't have other compelling reasons. If this is an external project. Would make more sense to move it out from shindig core feature to the extra features?
>
> Dan Dumont wrote:
> I think that probably makes sense. Anyone else care to comment?
>
> Stanton Sievers wrote:
> +1 on moving to extras. From what I can tell no other features depend on it.
+1 moving to extras
- Henry
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review14365
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> - The swfobject.opt.js should be removed from source code.
> - The swfobject.js code format need some refinement to align with Shindig JS code guideline.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Paul Lindner <li...@inuus.com>.
> On Dec. 12, 2012, 7:20 p.m., Dan Dumont wrote:
> > Looking this over again, I'm not sure what to do here. This looks like a library that we've gotten from the project http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/
> > They wouldn't have code to our standards, and I'm not sure if we should modify it (which would make tracking changes a bit more difficult).
> >
> > It also appears that we have copied their pre-optimized file as a .opt file so that our compiler can skip that step... it might be optimized better than the basic optimization we perform during build.
> >
> > Can someone else comment on what we should do here?
> > Paul?
I'm fine either way. swfobject.js hasn't been updated since 2009 so I'm not concerned with upstream integration.
- Paul
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review14365
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> - The swfobject.opt.js should be removed from source code.
> - The swfobject.js code format need some refinement to align with Shindig JS code guideline.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Stanton Sievers <si...@gmail.com>.
> On Dec. 12, 2012, 7:20 p.m., Dan Dumont wrote:
> > Looking this over again, I'm not sure what to do here. This looks like a library that we've gotten from the project http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/
> > They wouldn't have code to our standards, and I'm not sure if we should modify it (which would make tracking changes a bit more difficult).
> >
> > It also appears that we have copied their pre-optimized file as a .opt file so that our compiler can skip that step... it might be optimized better than the basic optimization we perform during build.
> >
> > Can someone else comment on what we should do here?
> > Paul?
>
> Paul Lindner wrote:
> I'm fine either way. swfobject.js hasn't been updated since 2009 so I'm not concerned with upstream integration.
>
> Dan Dumont wrote:
> Ok. Marshall, is there a compelling reason (aside from general clean up) to make this change?
> I think I'd rather leave it as-is if there's no other reason to change it, since it is 3rd party code.
>
> Marshall Shi wrote:
> No I don't have other compelling reasons. If this is an external project. Would make more sense to move it out from shindig core feature to the extra features?
>
> Dan Dumont wrote:
> I think that probably makes sense. Anyone else care to comment?
+1 on moving to extras. From what I can tell no other features depend on it.
- Stanton
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review14365
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> - The swfobject.opt.js should be removed from source code.
> - The swfobject.js code format need some refinement to align with Shindig JS code guideline.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Dan Dumont <dd...@us.ibm.com>.
> On Dec. 12, 2012, 7:20 p.m., Dan Dumont wrote:
> > Looking this over again, I'm not sure what to do here. This looks like a library that we've gotten from the project http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/
> > They wouldn't have code to our standards, and I'm not sure if we should modify it (which would make tracking changes a bit more difficult).
> >
> > It also appears that we have copied their pre-optimized file as a .opt file so that our compiler can skip that step... it might be optimized better than the basic optimization we perform during build.
> >
> > Can someone else comment on what we should do here?
> > Paul?
>
> Paul Lindner wrote:
> I'm fine either way. swfobject.js hasn't been updated since 2009 so I'm not concerned with upstream integration.
Ok. Marshall, is there a compelling reason (aside from general clean up) to make this change?
I think I'd rather leave it as-is if there's no other reason to change it, since it is 3rd party code.
- Dan
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review14365
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> - The swfobject.opt.js should be removed from source code.
> - The swfobject.js code format need some refinement to align with Shindig JS code guideline.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Marshall Shi <sh...@cn.ibm.com>.
> On Dec. 12, 2012, 7:20 p.m., Dan Dumont wrote:
> > Looking this over again, I'm not sure what to do here. This looks like a library that we've gotten from the project http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/
> > They wouldn't have code to our standards, and I'm not sure if we should modify it (which would make tracking changes a bit more difficult).
> >
> > It also appears that we have copied their pre-optimized file as a .opt file so that our compiler can skip that step... it might be optimized better than the basic optimization we perform during build.
> >
> > Can someone else comment on what we should do here?
> > Paul?
>
> Paul Lindner wrote:
> I'm fine either way. swfobject.js hasn't been updated since 2009 so I'm not concerned with upstream integration.
>
> Dan Dumont wrote:
> Ok. Marshall, is there a compelling reason (aside from general clean up) to make this change?
> I think I'd rather leave it as-is if there's no other reason to change it, since it is 3rd party code.
No I don't have other compelling reasons. If this is an external project. Would make more sense to move it out from shindig core feature to the extra features?
- Marshall
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review14365
-----------------------------------------------------------
On Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> - The swfobject.opt.js should be removed from source code.
> - The swfobject.js code format need some refinement to align with Shindig JS code guideline.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>
Re: Review Request: clean up swfobject feature
Posted by Dan Dumont <dd...@us.ibm.com>.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/#review14365
-----------------------------------------------------------
Looking this over again, I'm not sure what to do here. This looks like a library that we've gotten from the project http://code.google.com/p/swfobject/
They wouldn't have code to our standards, and I'm not sure if we should modify it (which would make tracking changes a bit more difficult).
It also appears that we have copied their pre-optimized file as a .opt file so that our compiler can skip that step... it might be optimized better than the basic optimization we perform during build.
Can someone else comment on what we should do here?
Paul?
- Dan Dumont
On Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m., Marshall Shi wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> (Updated Dec. 4, 2012, 2:53 a.m.)
>
>
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, Dan Dumont, Stanton Sievers, and Rich Thompson.
>
>
> Description
> -------
>
> - The swfobject.opt.js should be removed from source code.
> - The swfobject.js code format need some refinement to align with Shindig JS code guideline.
>
>
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1887.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1887
>
>
> Diffs
> -----
>
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/pom.xml 1401141
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.js 1383189
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/swfobject/swfobject.opt.js 1383189
>
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/8244/diff/
>
>
> Testing
> -------
>
> Done
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Marshall Shi
>
>