For various reasons, we happen to use different global symbol names in our
use of the config lib. That in turn has to do with the fact that internal to
Google we've built a config library that simplifies the current model
considerably: rather than injecting config at the end of JS, we inject at
the top.
This removes the gadgets.config.register(...) callback, instead allowing
simple synchronous access of config values:
g.config.get("my/value");
...at any point in code that requires it.
--j
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:11 PM, Henry Saputra <hsapu...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/1224/#review1232
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Is there requirement or scenario where these need to be exposed as abstract
> methods? Seems like default code should work.
>
> I am just wondering what would be the situation where you need different
> behavior.
>
> - Henry
>
>
> On 2011-07-29 21:03:19, csong wrote:
> >
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> > https://reviews.apache.org/r/1224/
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > (Updated 2011-07-29 21:03:19)
> >
> >
> > Review request for shindig, johnfargo and Ziv Horesh.
> >
> >
> > Summary
> > -------
> >
> > abstracted out 2 methods
> >
> >
> > Diffs
> > -----
> >
> >
> trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/js/ConfigInjectionProcessor.java
> 1152332
> >
> > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/1224/diff
> >
> >
> > Testing
> > -------
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > csong
> >
> >
>
>
