On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 4:45 AM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Alright, I'll hold tight on this a little longer. I will also pose another > question: > > Can we get rid of javascript/container/json.js? > This is another duplicate library of features/core/json.js. It also seems > like no one is using it. > > Please speak up if you think this needs to stick around. > Thanks!
That one can definitely go as long as none of the other files are referencing it. > > - Cassie > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 7:47 PM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 6:39 AM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I can not find any Shindig usages of the code inside of > > > javascript/container/ifpc.js or of ifpc_relay.html. All of the samples > > are > > > now using the rpc library. > > > > > > I would like to delete these two files in order to reduce duplication > > > inside > > > of our code base. Is there any reason for these files to stay around > > that > > > I > > > am missing? Is anybody relying on them? Thanks. > > > > > > I can't think of any reason to keep them. The legacy mapping in rpc.js > > takes > > care of dealing with parent containers that are still using ifpc, so > > there's > > really no good reason for keeping it around so far as I know. I'd leave > it > > around for at least a week though -- Zhen is on vacation and I suspect > > he's > > not checking his email. > > > -- ~Kevin
