----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >
