Hi, I wanted to know whats the plan for oauth, any idea when we can see this coming in Shindig. Also, where can I read more about social tokens?
Regards, Rohit On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 6:25 AM, David Primmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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". > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > >
