The way we've implemented it in our system is to have appData indexed by (user, appId) and for userPrefs to be per-instance. So the behaviour you describe, where appData is shared between two copies of the app on their profile, is exactly how we've done it.
I must admit, though, that I can't for the life of me remember WHY I implemented it that way, or have any reference as to the reasoning. Regards, Mat On 26 August 2010 05:13, Gregg Horan <gregg.ho...@dealer.com> wrote: > I'm trying to clarify if appData is supposed to be shared or distinct across > multiple instances of the same gadget(appId) for a given user (per the > opensocial standard). > > I have initially implemented appData and userPrefs as dinstinct per instance. > Now I'm reading this wiki example and questioning that approach: > http://wiki.opensocial.org/index.php?title=The_Persistence_API > which describes an app that relies on exactly the opposite behavior... > someone turns off a beep setting for a gadget in their own profile - then > expects to reference that same setting when viewing the same gadget (app) > when being viewed in another person's profile. That won't fly in my > implementation. Conversely, if the person in that example puts two copies of > that app on their profile, they have no way to configure them differently. > So who's right? > > It's easy to go down one road or the other, but it would seem to be a core > behavior that would be dictated by the spec. Have I missed it? > > Thanks > Gregg -- Mat Mannion Web Developer IT Services University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL Tel: 024 765 74433 Email: m.mann...@warwick.ac.uk
