Re: RESTful Batching support in shindig - spec compliance?

[Cassie <do...@google.com>]

Oh my - now this was an interesting thread in my absence. Now don't worry -
I haven't been making any decisions without you Chris!
My thought process went like this:


we have to implement the spec
we also need to get the opensocial js library working on top of restful
we need it done yesterday

the spec says that its batching is optional
multipart stuff looks like it would take some work
the current shindig wire format already has a simpler batching format and we
need this for prod opensocial js libraries
the spec says extensions are fine

okay, i'll just port the current stuff over - same js code, minor java
changes.
we can change this to match the spec format later, or always keep this just
for the js library or do something else, who knows - lets discuss.
vacation.


and there you go! custom simple batching thingy whipped together!
this doesn't have to stay in shindig and can be replaced with the multipart
stuff, or it could be added to the spec at a later date. it all depends on
what we want to do.

on that note, has anyone made any progress on the spec consistent batching?

- cassie



On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 6:29 PM, Chris Chabot <ch...@xs4all.nl> wrote:

> My main concern was if this would impact our spec support or not. Having
> some code in place that does not follow the spec, is something we usually
> try to avoid right? :)
>
> John's answer clarified that for me though, seems we have the
> 'alternate/new' json format for now, which possibly might be added to the
> spec if it sticks around, and hopefully later also add code that deals with
> the way it's currently documented in the spec.
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 25, 2008, at 3:21 AM, Kevin Brown wrote:
>
>  I dunno, I usually don't post threads saying I can't figure out how to do
>> something unless someone was expecting that I was doing it. Were you
>> actually waiting on Cassie on this? If so, yeah -- she probably should
>> have
>> given you a heads up that there were some issues. I don't see why you'd
>> wait
>> on her though if you've got something that works.
>>
>
>