-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/15960/#review29724
-----------------------------------------------------------



trunk/java/social-api/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/social/sample/spi/JsonDbOpensocialService.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/15960/#comment57184>

    Is it possible for getJSONObject(recipient) to be null?



trunk/java/social-api/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/social/sample/spi/JsonDbOpensocialService.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/15960/#comment57183>

    "messages" should be a CONSTANT



trunk/java/social-api/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/social/sample/spi/JsonDbOpensocialService.java
<https://reviews.apache.org/r/15960/#comment57182>

    You should do this conversion once outside of the recipients loop.


- Stanton Sievers


On Dec. 3, 2013, 11:05 a.m., Andreas Kohn wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/15960/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Dec. 3, 2013, 11:05 a.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for shindig.
> 
> 
> Bugs: SHINDIG-1960
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1960
> 
> 
> Repository: shindig
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Fix #createMessage():
> * assign a random message id if it wasn't done from the outside (no checks 
> for uniqueness are done if one is given)
> * properly access the json data
> 
> Note: this contains the functional fixes from 
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/15420/ / SHINDIG-1951 without the method 
> signature changes.
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> trunk/java/social-api/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/social/sample/spi/JsonDbOpensocialService.java
>  1547331 
>   
> trunk/java/social-api/src/test/java/org/apache/shindig/social/sample/spi/JsonDbOpensocialServiceTest.java
>  1547331 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/15960/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Unit test exercises both changed parts.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Andreas Kohn
> 
>

Reply via email to