+1 to add the field in the Messaging REST API spec... is a small change to avoid multiple implementations and move from the standard
ropu On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 3:21 PM, Rodrigo Gallardo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 01:28:10PM -0400, Bobby Bissett wrote: > > Hi Rodrigo and all, > > > > I've attached my simple jsonmessage.js file (mostly it just adds a > > toJsonObject method) and related diffs. > > ... > > org.apache.shindig.social.opensocial.model.Message > > - This is a minor change, but it's an API change so it's a bigger > > deal. To match the rest/rpc proposal, I added a list of recipients to > > the class so that they can be pulled out in the message handler. > > I also lean towards this solution. Given how nothing inside shindig is > actualy using that part of the API, it should not be a very painful > change. > > > I see > > that's a todo in your handler; the recipients could be another param > > in the post body, but I don't think that works well in the rest case > > without clashing with the messaging URI template. > > The whole rest code assumes a single argument payload in the HTTP body, > so doing this clashes completely with it all. > > > One other issue is that, when returning a message to the client, there > > needs to be some way to include the sender information. Another field > > could be added to Message, or this could be handled in an impl- > > specific way. > > I'd add another field. Even thought getting messages is not part of this > spec we should try to get a common way to do it. maybe we should even > propose to add it to the API. > -- .-. --- .--. ..- R o p u
