Hi Chris, Do you mean how compliant with the spec the java social-api server is? That's a tough one to answer, since it turns out that the spec itself is not really very specific on a number of issues. See my recent posts to the spec list. We've found it pretty tricky getting the Atom format correct with all the 'hoisting' rules. There's a lot of little things to do. Json is much easier. The java server's json format is better than the atom format, it is pretty much read-only right now. Doesn't do oauth, but does check social tokens. It doesn't do any of the optional stuff in the spec and it uses large end-to-end tests instead of unit tests but those give it decent coverage.
I think you'll find that you need to invent a lot of stuff to get a system that works like a real social network. Shindig, as you know, does not come with one. But maybe if you have a real container it's not that big of a deal. I've found it hard to code without a real fully modeled container. davep On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey Guys, > > We had a bit of time pass since these emails, hows the weather on the > RESTful spec compliance side now? I kind of started laying the groundwork > today now that i caught up with the email & patches backlog after the google > I/O and my fingers are itching to get started on this :) > > -- Chris > > On May 19, 2008, at 10:16 PM, Cassie wrote: > >> So the format right now... isn't right... so I wouldn't try to start >> coding it on the php side. I am going to try to write some detailed >> java tests in the next couple of days that will match the restful spec >> exactly (for gets, not posts nor deletes yet). As soon as all of those >> tests pass then the js will be good to go spec wise. >> >> I don't anticipate it taking too long to clean up the json format, but >> we are definitely not compliant yet so its good that you asked :) >> I'll ping when the js is good to go. >> >> - Cassie >> >> >> On Mon, May 19, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Well that goes without saying (or so i would have hoped), but you have to >>> admit in general it is easier to develop when you know what your code is >>> linked against (javascript libs in this case), is supposed to be working >>> and >>> fully correct to spec :) >>> >>> I have no idea how far the assumptions in the js code are from the spec, >>> maybe not at all or not in a way that it would influence a >>> implementation, >>> thats why i was asking :) >>> >>> -- Chris >>> >>> On May 19, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Kevin Brown wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I think a better goal would be "all versions exactly match the spec". >>>> >>> >>> > >
