Thanks for the updates. Some comments inline: On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 2:13 PM, Haibo Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Luciano, > > No, not at all, just forgot to cc to the list > > I am Working on GdataBindingInvoker.GetInvoker() and having some > issues, will submit the updated patch via JIRA when I clear this part. > > Thanks, > Haibo > > On Wed, Jun 18, 2008 at 5:21 PM, Luciano Resende <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Would you mind sending this to the list. >> >> Also, you should provide the patch using the JIRA application, and >> discuss the aproach/design you want to take on the list as well, see >> how others from GSoC are doing. >> >> On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 11:12 PM, Haibo Zhao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Hi Luciano, >>> >>> Please check the project blog for the 5th weekly progress report: >>> >>> Link: http://gdatabindingtuscany.blogspot.com >>> >>> Please see the attached patch file, which is still a very very >>> preliminary thing, more like a "hello world" version. I basically >>> modify the atom-binding code and change the binding type name, the >>> corresponding configuration files, package names and class names. >>>
Looks like a good start. I'd recommend having the module called something like binding-atom-gdata, if this is kind of extension to the atom binding. Also, looks like you added to much into your patch (check how to configure svn:ingnore in our dev guide) and you also concatenate the diff multiple times in the same patch, causing same file to be showing multiple times on the patch... but it's a good start, let me know when you have a new patch available, and let's start using the jira to provide the patch. >>> After reading and modifying the Atom-binding code, I have some >>> notes(comments in atom-binding classes) in atom-binding classes about >>> the changes I am planning to make. These nodes are included in the >>> patch. >>> >>> Luciano, I am having a couple of questions: >>> >>> (1) Is this the right direction to implement gdata-binding? I mean, >>> modifying the Atom-binding code. I feel like this should be OK because >>> the major different is the model used in Abdera and GData, the way the >>> entries can be parsed from the message and the data conversion from/to >>> collection items. So could you confirm me that I am heading a right >>> direction? >>> I guess there are two ways of getting this GData integration done, one by creating a totally new binding (Douglas approach) and another way would be extending the current Atom support (your aproach)... so I guess you are in the right direction. >>> (2) It seems that the authentication part is not completed in Atom-binding. Yes, but I also noticed that it looks like Abdera already have some extensions supporting GData authentication, it would be great to take a look and see how it could be used to our advantage. Also note that you and Douglas are going to have the same requirements regarding availability of GData dependencies in a maven repo. Let's collaborate in finding a solution for this issue. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks a lot, >>> >>> Haibo >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Luciano Resende >> Apache Tuscany Committer >> http://people.apache.org/~lresende >> http://lresende.blogspot.com/ >> > -- Luciano Resende Apache Tuscany Committer http://people.apache.org/~lresende http://lresende.blogspot.com/
