2009/10/28 ๏̯͡๏ Jasvir Nagra <jas...@google.com> > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:21 PM, John Hjelmstad <johnfa...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hey Jas: >> >> As I noted to you recently, I've finally gotten the JS feature loader CL >> out. It's here: http://codereview.appspot.com/143046 >> >> The impact this would have on your CL is that it allows for introduction >> of syntax that would include tamings.js only when feature=caja is included >> (that, in turn, will require making some kind of gadget processing context >> available to rewriters et al). >> >> The underlying design question I have - not necessarily for this CL - is >> whether "feature=caja is included somewhere in the Gadget feature dependency >> tree" will always be equivalent to "Gadget is cajoled". >> > > Yes. If the feature is required implies the content will be cajoled. >
Yeah, I was more getting at the reverse here - if cajoled, does the gadget require feature=caja? As you note, it does not. Anyway, all this will affect the design of the Feature loader stuff moreso than this CL. I'll patch yours in shortly. --j > > >> In particular, will this be true for cajoled-inlined content? I know we've >> discussed various ideas around this: <Content type="caja">, <Content >> type="html" cajolable="true">, <Require feature="caja">, or simply [ >> container chooses whether or not to cajole, no syntax in gadget ]. Thoughts >> on this? >> > > Unfortunately this is not true. As it stands a container can externally > turn on cajoling but passing a uri parameter flag to turn on cajoling (using > &caja=1) and include the caja runtime library (&libs=caja). Both the > parameters are needed to run cajoled gadgets correctly and are used by > containers. > > >> >> In the interim, I don't want to hold you up too much, and feel that >> including these tamings should be OK even though it's unnecessary out of >> Caja context. Others have an opinion? >> > > I'd really like to see the CL land as it enables correctly use of > opensocial and osapi with cajoled gadgets. I'd be keen to get this > committed sooner than later - if it really adds undue size to the uncajoled > code, I am happy to make the changes required to use the new JsFeatureLoader > to only load taming.js if its needed in a separate change. > > >> >> --j >> >> >> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 11:18 PM, <jas...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Snapshot. >>> >>> >>> On 2009/10/21 19:03:23, jasvir wrote: >>> >>>> http://codereview.appspot.com/135051/diff/1027/48 >>>> File features/src/main/javascript/features/caja/taming.js (right): >>>> >>> >>> http://codereview.appspot.com/135051/diff/1027/48#newcode105 >>>> Line 105: var tamings___ = tamings___ || []; >>>> This works for now. Its vulnerable to a feature you don't trust >>>> >>> resetting this >>> >>>> array entirely to prevent it from getting exposed to a gadget but if >>>> >>> you have a >>> >>>> feature you don't trust, it can do anything anyways. >>>> >>> >>> On 2009/10/20 21:53:57, johnfargo wrote: >>>> > Not that it's a big deal in this case, but maybe it should be. This >>>> >>> is one of >>> >>>> a >>>> > few use cases I've seen arise that call for a clearer representation >>>> >>> of the >>> >>>> > feature dependency tree. >>>> >>> >>> http://codereview.appspot.com/135051/diff/1027/46 >>>> File features/src/main/javascript/features/flash/taming.js (right): >>>> >>> >>> http://codereview.appspot.com/135051/diff/1027/46#newcode1 >>>> Line 1: /* >>>> On 2009/10/20 21:53:57, johnfargo wrote: >>>> > Missing a corresponding feature.xml update for flash. >>>> >>> >>> Done. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> http://codereview.appspot.com/135051 >>> >> >> >
