I managed to get the scaDomain working for the JSON-RPC again. I have also updated the helloworld-jsonrpc-webapp to use that, instead of a local json.js proxy.
On 10/25/07, ant elder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've had a quick look and i think should be possible to support both > approaches, i'll go give it a try. Once the sca.js approach is working and > the old scaDomain.js is used we could log a warning message saying its > scaDomain.js is deprecated. > > ...ant > > On 10/25/07, Simon Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > OK, this member of the community will bite :-) > > > > Now that we have released 1.0, we should not break compatibility with > > user applications or user extensions without a very good reason. > > We should always try to deprecate previously supported APIs and keep > > them working rather than disabling them. Is there any way to > > keep the old applications using SCADomain.js running, while supporting > > and recommending the new approach using jsonrpc.js? > > > > Simon > > > > ant elder wrote: > > > > > On 10/22/07, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >>The upgrade process is very harmless, two line of code, one for the js > > >>reference and another for the reference declaration. Also, seems like > > >>there are some bugs on the scaDomain.js [1] that would not happen > > >>while using the manual reference. I also think that, having the two > > >>very similar bindings will make confusion and other maintenance > > >>headaches. Have said that, and as I'm working towards getting the > > >>web2.0 References working soon, I'd like to keep this as one binding, > > >>but I'm open if the community feels otherwise. > > > > > > > > > > > > Doesn't look like Mr Community is answering...Trying to maintain > > backward > > > compatibility where possible is important. It doesn't matter that its a > > > "harmless two line change", if some guy upgrades from Tuscany 1.0 to > > > 1.1and > > > his applications don't work any more then that is a bad user experience > > > which we should try hard to avoid. Is there a reason the scaDoamin.jscan't > > > work anymore? If there is a reason then a separate new binding seems > > better > > > to me just so we can avoid breaking anyone. > > > > > > ...ant > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
