Ok, that does sound like it's correct; the terminology is a little awkward because generally when referring to the "container" we were referring to the site generating the iframes (igoogle, orkut, etc.)
~Kevin On Jan 11, 2008 9:49 AM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So how opensocial works today is that each instance of a gadget gets its > own > opensocial container. This is confusing when added to the gadgets > terminology, but opensocial came up with its container spi first :) > > In addition to the "container" code that is stuffed inside the iframe, > there > is also code that goes in the parent iframe (the other half of some ifpc > calls). The sample container does not have any of this right now. However, > I > am working on something at the moment which will add js to the outer > iframe. > This code is simply modeled like one of the sampleX.html files. > > So I think I got it all right... hope that clears things up! > > - Cassie > > > On Jan 10, 2008 7:21 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Cassie, > > > > I'm a little unclear on why this particular bit of code was made into a > > feature. Isn't this the actual container javascript, or is this simply > the > > abstract mapping of a "container" that opensocial needs to function? In > > the > > former case it shouldn't be a feature, but in the latter it should. Also > > in > > the latter case, it seems like this should be <container> code and not > > <gadget> code if it is intended to be a feature. Am I missing something > > here? This is based mostly on reading the comments rather than any > > thorough > > examination of what the code is doing, so if this is the intended > behavior > > than perhaps we need to modify the comments. > > > > ~Kevin > > >
