Ok if there can be a small amount of post commit re-factor, I am
definitely +1 on this, big improvement.
Ian
On 10 Feb 2009, at 00:47, [email protected] wrote:
I definitely agree that xstream and json-lib should be removed if
not in
use (though I believe that xstream is being used for atom support
currently??)
I'd also be fine moving Enum back into social though it requires some
work in the existing BeanConverters Id rather avoid in this CL.
http://codereview.appspot.com/14066/diff/1/117
File
java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/protocol/conversion/
jsonlib/BaseJsonLibConfig.java
(right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/14066/diff/1/117#newcode67
Line 67: morpherRegistry.registerMorpher(new
EnumMorpher(org.apache.shindig.protocol.model.Enum.Field.class));
On 2009/02/09 23:48:03, ianboston wrote:
I think this creates a cyclic binding between social and common, is
that a good
idea ?
I wouldnt call it cyclic but I agree its not exactly ideal either.
Multi-binding in Guice 2 would solve all ills here but until then....
http://codereview.appspot.com/14066/diff/1/16
File
java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/protocol/model/Enum.java
(right):
http://codereview.appspot.com/14066/diff/1/16#newcode22
Line 22: *
http://www.opensocial.org/Technical-Resources/opensocial-spec-v081/opensocial-reference#opensocial.Enum
</a>
On 2009/02/09 23:48:03, ianboston wrote:
Strictly speaking this is part of the OpenSocial API and not part of
common.
Although the contents of Enum is small and fairly non specific.
Mostly agreed though the notion encapsulated here isnt specific to
opensocial even though all its current uses are. It needs to remain in
common because of how our hard-coded bean conversion works. Im sure
that
can be fixed later I just dont want to overload this excessively.
http://codereview.appspot.com/14066
