+1 (non binding) On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 5:24 AM, Ram Sharma <ramsharma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 (non-binding) > > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:16 AM, Upayavira <u...@odoko.co.uk> wrote: > > > On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 12:10 -0600, Shtein, Ilya wrote: > > > In my honest opinion, Shindig's gadget.rpc doesn't work in complex > > > scenarios that involve serving content from another security context > > > (not Shindig's) in the gadget iFrame. Just wanted to let you know... > > > Please see my post titled "Problems with two-legged OAuth, Single > > > Sign-on, and gadgets.rpc working together" for details - I attempted > > > twice to get an answer and failed. > > > > > > Yes, we will keep working with Shindig, but the "community voice" is > not > > > that unanimous. > > > > Ilya, > > > > This vote is about whether the community is ready to take full > > responsibility for itself and its code-base - it isn't about whether the > > code itself is complete, or working, or workable, etc. > > > > As to your particular problem, I'm probably one of the least > > knowledgeable people regarding Shindig on this list, I'm afraid I really > > can't help - sorry :-( > > > > Upayavira > > > > > > > -- > Ram Sharma > -- PGP KeyID: 1024D/69B00854 subkeys.pgp.net http://cheztog.blogspot.com
