On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 12:21 AM, Tad Glines <[email protected]> wrote: >> Tad, can you could update that change to work against the current >> source tree, and use the request_codereview tool to upload a patch to >> codereview.waveprotocol.org when you're done? Add me and Doug as >> reviewers. Doug can comment on the flash websocket bits (since he >> probably understands how that works). I'll submit the code to the >> repository when everyone's happy with it. > > Doug has already submitted a patch, let's just go with that one.
Sounds great to me. Do you mind reviewing the code? I'd appreciate your opinion on how its designed. > Requiring a separate flash socket policy server is a bit clunky. What's > wrong with including it in FedOne? The name ServerRpcProvider is no longer > accurate since it also contains all the jetty setup code as well. Including > the flash policy socket stuff just made sense. I made it configurable so > users could turn it on or off if needed. Yeah - I agree it should be in fedone. I'd just prefer the code in a separate class that perhaps gets referenced by ServerRpcProvider. -J > -Tad > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Wave Protocol" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Wave Protocol" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/wave-protocol?hl=en.
