>-----Original Message----- >From: Henry Saputra [mailto:henry.sapu...@gmail.com] >Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2012 7:17 PM >To: dev@shindig.apache.org >Subject: Re: Changing oauthpopup feature to introduce some container >cooperation... > >Dan, > >Since we are close to release 2.5 I would vote for option 4.
My first instinct is to agree with Henry that this should wait. On the other hand, we don't really have a roadmap for 2.5, so I would say weigh the value of the change, over cost of breakage. I don't think adding it to core really solves anything, so if you are going to change it I would recommend 1 and make sure it is part of the release/upgrade documentation. Do we have a timeline for 2.5 RELEASE? My $0.02. > >We have other issues with Shindig to follow OS specs so unless it crucial >bug fix I think we should leave it for now. > > >- Henry > >On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Ryan Baxter <rbaxte...@apache.org> wrote: >> I like option 1 but can understand why people would be upset, so option 4 >> may be your only option. Although I hope we could do option 1 post 2.5... >> >> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Dan Dumont <ddum...@us.ibm.com> >wrote: >> >>> I've been looking at having the oauth popup feature make some calls into >>> the container over rpc to handle the popup for various reasons, one of >>> which is to work around browser popup blockers. >>> The container could implement the feature as a litebox instead of a >popup. >>> >>> This change though requires some changes that will probably break >>> unsuspecting upgraders... so my options are as follows: >>> >>> 1) Refactor oauthpopup and break unsuspecting containers when they >>> upgrade. >>> 2) Refactor oauthpopup and add it to core (it's pretty small) so that no >>> one gets hurt on the upgrade. >>> 3) Refactor oauthpopup and add only the container part to core (this gets >>> kinda messy... ) >>> 4) LEAVE MY OAUTHPOPUP ALONE! (mess with my own copy, but don't >change >>> shindig) >>> Btw, the default implementation in my refactor calls window.open just >like >>> the old one, only now the container is doing the window.open instead of >>> the gadget. >>> >>> What does the community think the best approach would be? >>
