OK, that's a good idea too, if you don't mind supporting synch calls going forward. Did you decide to go ahead and support the callback argument for async calls in the first or last postition, or any position?
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:30 AM, William Becker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Jabsorb-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.jabsorb.org/mailman/listinfo/jabsorb-dev
