Cool. I can delete the java based GadgetDataServlet and will also flip the bit to true. That way whoever submits first won't break the other.
- Cassie On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks Paul! > > I'll go and remove the GadgetDataServlet based code tomorrow and flip the > switch in the default container.js to useRest : true. > > So consider the 8 hour notice guys :) > > -- Chris > > > On Jul 17, 2008, at 1:52 AM, Paul Lindner wrote: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/shindig/branches/reTIRED >> >> is now created. Feel safe in ripping code out. >> >> >> On Jul 16, 2008, at 1:53 PM, Kevin Brown wrote: >> >> We could call it reTIRED; get rid of TIRED by using REST. >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:16 PM, Louis Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> +1 on retiring. >>>> >>>> Anyone still using that code care to suggest a name as it will likely be >>>> most relevant to them. >>>> >>>> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Chris Chabot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 on retiring the old GadgetDataServlet code. >>>>> >>>>> It's been a pain in the backside to see features being added to one >>>>> back-end or the other, and it was confusing contributers too; My >>>>> fingers >>>>> have been itching to be able to make that move, but the java situation >>>>> >>>> meant >>>> >>>>> we needed to wait a bit longer before we could do that because it >>>>> seemed >>>>> better to time it together w the java version. >>>>> >>>>> In essence doing a mini release or telling people to use revision XXXXX >>>>> >>>> is >>>> >>>>> the same really, just a snapshot in time; But without being able to fix >>>>> things like you could on a branch... so branching has my vote. >>>>> >>>>> This will put some strain on people who are developing using the latest >>>>> version of shindig, but that chose to stick to the old wire format for >>>>> >>>> now >>>> >>>>> (i know of a few of those) but i guess they need to switch over at some >>>>> point anyhow to get 0.8 support, so what better time then the present >>>>> >>>> right? >>>> >>>>> :) >>>>> >>>>> How's other committers feeling about this? As far as i'm concerned >>>>> sooner >>>>> is better then later :) >>>>> >>>>> -- Chris >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 16, 2008, at 7:59 PM, Cassie wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Now that we've decided on a path for the restful java code it's time to >>>>> >>>>>> figure out how we are going to deprecate the non-rest old code. (ie >>>>>> GadgetDataServlet and friends). I know people are using the old code >>>>>> in >>>>>> prod >>>>>> so it needs to live somewhere and I'm not sure what the proper thing >>>>>> to >>>>>> >>>>> do >>>> >>>>> in svn is. >>>>>> >>>>>> - do we branch in svn and put the old code on the branch? (i think the >>>>>> >>>>> new >>>> >>>>> rest code should definitely be in "main") >>>>>> - do we just tell people to stay at revision xxx if they want it? >>>>>> - do we do a mini-release? >>>>>> >>>>>> It is probably something else I haven't thought of at all. And php >>>>>> guys >>>>>> >>>>> - >>>> >>>>> you will probably have to do this too, so we should probably share the >>>>>> same >>>>>> decision. >>>>>> Thanks again for all feedback. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Cassie >>>>>> >>>>>> ps - just think, we almost have a clean social-api codebase! >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> Paul Lindner >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >
