On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 12:21 AM, Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Option 3 I think. > > trunk/conf/shindig.java.properties > or maybee > trunk/conf/shindig.properties > if the settings really are shared between php and shindig. The container configuration is shared, it's the properties file (which points to the container configuration) that isn't. PHP doesn't know (or care) about properties files. > > > Ian > > > On 25 Sep 2008, at 18:05, Brian Eaton wrote: > > OK, three ways to do this: >> >> 1) Have social-api depend on java/gadgets/conf/gadgets.properties to >> locate the container.js file >> 2) Have social-api hard code the location of >> shindig.containers.default in a Guice module. >> 3) Rename java/gadgets/conf/gadgets.properties to >> shindig/config/shindig.java.properties (or another suitable path, if >> you prefer) >> >> Any preference? If you leave it to me I'll go with option 1 or option >> 3, depending on my mood. =) I'll go with option 1 if I'm feeling >> lazy, option 3 if I'm feeling disruptive. =) >> >> On Thu, Sep 25, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Ian Boston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Ok that makes sense to me. >>> Ian >>> >>> On 25 Sep 2008, at 17:24, Kevin Brown wrote: >>> >>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >
