Thanks for the reply John. Just want to make sure we add customization
point to Shindig as necessary =)
- Henry
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 2:36 PM, John Hjelmstad <fa...@google.com> wrote:
> 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
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
