On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 9:23 PM, Nick Lothian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What infrastructure can be shared? The shared pieces are the data accessors (both the JS and REST APIs need these). Ideally I'd like to see the wire format used by the JS APIs to communicate with the back end being identical as that of the JSON bindings for the RESTful state, although that's not a strict requirement. > > I can see that code in the org.apache.shindig.social.opensocial.model > package is likely to be useful in both systems, but that can be handled by > breaking the build up. > > Nick > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian Eaton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 3 April 2008 2:30 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Social data request URL issue > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 8:07 PM, John Panzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > <snip> > > All of these benefit from separating the code and URLs of the two > > subsystems. > <snip> > > Can we please not separate the code too much? There's a certain > amount of infrastructure that can be usefully shared between the two > services. > > IMPORTANT: This e-mail, including any attachments, may contain private or > confidential information. If you think you may not be the intended > recipient, or if you have received this e-mail in error, please contact the > sender immediately and delete all copies of this e-mail. If you are not the > intended recipient, you must not reproduce any part of this e-mail or > disclose its contents to any other party. This email represents the views of > the individual sender, which do not necessarily reflect those of > education.au limited except where the sender expressly states otherwise. It > is your responsibility to scan this email and any files transmitted with it > for viruses or any other defects. education.au limited will not be liable > for any loss, damage or consequence caused directly or indirectly by this > email. > -- ~Kevin
