On Tue, 2010-05-11 at 19:01 -0700, Paul Lindner wrote: > So here's a start (patch below) to streamlining the way shindig works with > rpc and rest endpoints. I did this so I could batch gadgets and social > calls in the same request. > > Is anyone deeply attached to /social and /gadgets?
At the moment it's possible to implement your own social apis in a separate language, and use a simple rewrite on these two directories to pass requests to the appropriate backend, while still making use of the gadgetserver. Am I correct that this change would tie you into extending the shindig classes if you wanted to implement both sides of the server? (or writing a request parser to split requests apart before proxying them to the appropriate backends) Out of interest, what benefits do we get from running off a flat directory structure? (except from batching two requests into a single call)
