I guessed as much, but still valid and can be applied to both. Rod
-- Rod Simpson @rockerston rodsimpson.com On March 21, 2014 at 12:03:52 PM, Scott Ganyo ([email protected]) wrote: Oh! Sorry, I didn’t realize which "Javascript SDK” we were discussing. My patches are for the node SDK, not the html SDK. Scott On Mar 21, 2014, at 10:57 AM, Rod Simpson <[email protected]> wrote: > We should also be thinking about the Node.js module and how these same kinds > of changes can be incorporated. > > Rod > > > -- > Rod Simpson > @rockerston > rodsimpson.com > > On March 21, 2014 at 11:24:17 AM, ryan bridges ([email protected]) wrote: > > Scott, > > If you want to send those my way, I'd be happy to incorporate them with > what I'm doing. > > -ryan > > > On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Scott Ganyo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 on callbacks consistency and ensuring we version correctly for >> incompatible changes. >> >> Scott >> >> P.S. I also have some monkey patches that I’ve been using over the SDK I >> need to submit as patches. >> >> On Mar 21, 2014, at 6:56 AM, Rod Simpson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> +1 on the validation. We did the dupe check initially because the API >> returned a null-pointer error when posting a dupe instead of giving you >> back a message telling you the entity already exists. >>> >>> +1 on consistent callbacks. Much needed and would make the development >> experience more predictable. >>> >>> We should consider incrementing the major version number since this >> would break backwards compatibility. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Rod Simpson >>> @rockerston >>> rodsimpson.com >>> >>> On March 21, 2014 at 7:42:26 AM, Ryan Bridges ([email protected]) >> wrote: >>> >>> Folks, >>> >>> I want to clean up the JS SDK to make it a bit more consistent. Among the >>> top-level objects (Entity, Collection, Group, etc), There are 2 big >>> inconsistencies: The validations performed before CRUD operations and the >>> data supplied in the callbacks from those operations. I would prefer if >>> the SDK performed no extra validation -- such as attempting to retrieve >> an >>> entity before updating it -- and instead performed the requested >> operation >>> and passed the error message back to be handled by the application. As >> for >>> the callbacks, some pass the response, some pass the deserialized JSON >>> object, and some pass the SDK object. If all callbacks were of the >>> form *function(err, >>> response, self)*, the programming model would be much easier to follow >> and >>> repeat. >>> >>> Does anyone have any comments or objections? >>> >>> -ryan >>> >>> >> >>
