On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 10:27 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is probably useful, but I'm hesitant on the namespace -- if a > standardized "auth" feature emerges, we'd have a conflict. I think this came > up before. Perhaps we should make all shindig implementation packages name > an underscore suffix to avoid this? Something like gadgets.auth_. We could > even put it under the "shindig" namespace to really avoid conflicts (and we > could migrate gadgets.config to this as well).
I don't like gadgets.auth_, but shindig.auth sounds good to me. gadgets.securityToken or shindig.securityToken would be fine with me as well. One of my concerns about the javascript libraries in general is that it's a little unclear what Shindig integrators can and can't depend on. If I pull the security token out of the URL, who am I going to break? The java code is changing frequently, but at least it gives a compiler error when interfaces change.
