On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:26 PM, Arthur Blake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> It sounds fine to me. But don't we want to keep around the old > implementation somewhere for awhile too? (So people can have sync support, > or may need to transition to the new architecture more slowly) I personally > don't need this, but it can't hurt. We could just call it jsonrpc-legacy.js > too.... > I should have said that more clearly: I intend on splitting up the sync from the async calls in jabsorb.js. I will put the sync extension into jabsorb-sync.js or something like that. jsonrpc.js will then contain jabsorb.js, jabsorb-circrefs.js and jabsorb-sync.js all in one neat bundle and its client will be able to be constructed by saying "new jsonrpc()" just like the old one. Cheers, Will
_______________________________________________ Jabsorb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.jabsorb.org/mailman/listinfo/jabsorb-dev
