On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:17 PM, Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Having done a *bit* of work in social-api, I have no objections. > > I assume that this would not generate a dependency on gadgets from > social-api, but would generate a dependency on common (already there) and a > load of properties in social-api. I think it would be quite confusing to > have config for social-api inside the gadgets tree ? The configuration is shared between the java and php code, it's not in the gadgets tree. It's in trunk/config. There is a properties file in the gadgets tree for system wide settings, but honestly most of those should be moved into container config as well (with some minor exceptions). > > > Ian > > > On 25 Sep 2008, at 16:21, Louis Ryan wrote: > > I don't have any major objections. The need is obvious, we can quibble >> over >> the details later. >> >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 1:19 PM, Brian Eaton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Kevin Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> Again, though, we could always re-invent per-container configuration for >>>> >>> the >>> >>>> umpteenth time that this discussion has come up, but we'll just come >>>> back >>>> >>> to >>> >>>> the same conclusion. We've proven time and time again that per container >>>> configuration is necessary because many implementations need to support >>>> >>> more >>> >>>> than one container in their deployment. >>>> >>> >>> Yep, I agree. I'd like to see somebody who works on the social-api >>> ack that this is the right thing to do before I check in a new >>> dependency. >>> >>> >
