Odd, a second client (my original one) didn't yield this. Disregard until further notice.
2009/10/29 John Hjelmstad <johnfa...@gmail.com> > FYI > > Looks like this CL missed adding the taming.js files to the pom.xmls -- > fixing that now. > > Apologies - John > > 2009/10/29 John Hjelmstad <johnfa...@gmail.com> > > Patch committed. I'll expect your JS follow-up after I get in the >> FeatureRegistry CL :) >> >> 2009/10/28 John Hjelmstad <johnfa...@gmail.com> >> >> 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
