Had you any luck with extension ?
I'd like to use it and doesn't really want to dive into that right
now...
Regards

On Sep 27, 3:56 pm, Bobby Johnson <bobby.john...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> Thanks for the response. I am currently using Radiant (0.9.1) which I was
> under the impression was Rails 3 compliant. I may have misread that. Thanks
> for the pointers to other version of AWS, I will give them a shot.
>
> Thanks again,
> Bobby
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Jim Gay <j...@saturnflyer.com> wrote:
> > I'm not very familiar with ActionWebService, but you could check other
> > forks for support of rails 3
> >http://github.com/datanoise/actionwebservice/network
>
> > Are you running the rails 3 branch of radiant? Because we bundle rails
> > 2.3.8 with the current gem (0.9.1)
>
> > On Fri, Sep 24, 2010 at 8:12 AM, Bobby Johnson <bobby.john...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Ok, so I have dug in a bit more and it looks like ActionWebServive was
> > > replaced with ActionResource which is intended to provide RESTful
> > interfaces
> > > of your ActiveRecord entities. Not sure how to make ActionResource
> > conform
> > > to the metablogapi xmlrpc api. But I am digging more. Are there any good
> > > docs on testing extensions for Radiant?
>
> > > On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 8:47 AM, Bobby Johnson (NotMyself)
> > > <bobby.john...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Hi gang,
>
> > >> I am attempting to convert my blog over to radiantcms & rails 3. I am
> > >> getting the following error when trying to hit api/xmlrpc:
> > >>http://gist.github.com/579241
>
> > >> Now, I have researched myself enough to know that I am running radiant
> > >> with rails 3 and feed_me has a dependency on actionwebservice which
> > >> doesn't seem to support rails 3. The extension is simple enough and I
> > >> want to try to fix it myself. Maybe even make a contribution back to
> > >> the community.
>
> > >> My question is what is the rails 3 way of standing up a web service? I
> > >> can't seem to find any documentation on it and my google-fu is failing
> > >> me.
>
> > >> Thanks for any pointers in the right direction, even if it's a "go
> > >> read this" kinda response.
>
> > >> Bobby
>
> > > --
> > > "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be
> > > correct."
>
> > > - Occam’s Razor
> > >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor>
>
> > --
> > Jim Gay
> > Saturn Flyer LLC
> >http://www.saturnflyer.com
> > 571-403-0338
>
> --
> "The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is most likely to be
> correct."
>
> - Occam’s Razorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

Reply via email to