I'd like it in features, not extras. I also wonder if we should move this to
the shindig.* namespace instead of gadgetsx. No reason to create yet another
top-level namespace...
On May 25, 2010, at 10:45 AM, henry.sapu...@gmail.com wrote:
Just eyeballing the content they look ok but I did
odds of clashing with window.shindig is going to be extremely low. Odds of
collision with window.container? All bets are off.
I'd prefer that we use the shindig.container namespace with a version number
like this:
shindig.container-1.0
On May 25, 2010, at 12:02 PM, Michael Hermanto wrote:
haven't had a chance to dig in too deeply. The one suggestion I would
make is adding fluent-style apis by returning 'this' from many of the
functions..
http://codereview.appspot.com/1218045/show
