Agree, and I think now is a good time to sync because the difference
between Shindig and OS version numbers arent too great.
- Henry
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 6:42 PM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> We could, but it's sure a lot more convenient when the major revs of the
> spec and the reference implem
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3777/#review4893
---
Thanks, committed as rev 1241749
- Henry
On 2012-02-07 22:41:01, He
We could, but it's sure a lot more convenient when the major revs of the
spec and the reference implementation actually do match :-).
Craig
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3777/#review4892
---
Ship it!
LGTM
- Ryan
On 2012-02-07 22:41:01, Henry Saputra wrote:
Cool, thanks for the insight Craig. The Shindig and OS spec number
does not have to be the same, but instead just the major part of the
version should be aligned.
I guess we could still stick with Shindig 3 as reference
implementation for OS version 2 and once OS version 3.0.0 is released
it will
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Ryan J Baxter wrote:
> Maybe we will only be able to keep the major
> version numbers in sync...
>
> FWIW, this is the approach that Tomcat uses -- it's major version numbers
are aligned with the Servlet spec version, but the Tomcat team is free to
improve their im
To be honest, I would prefer that the version of the spec and shindig
always match, otherwise I feel like we are back where we started. That
being said there will be scenarios when we make minor changes to the spec
that dont effect Shindig and we may need to make changes to Shindig that
dont n
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3777/
---
(Updated 2012-02-07 22:41:01.934131)
Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter and
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3777/#review4879
---
trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/actions/actions_container
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3777/
---
Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter and Dan Dumont.
Summary
---
See jir
Cool, I'll test and commit the changes.
- Henry
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 5:52 AM, Dan Dumont wrote:
> I agree, we probably should be using the container api to register the
> endpoints.
>
>
>
> From: Ryan J Baxter/Westford/IBM@IRIS
> To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
> Cc: Dan Dumont/Westford/
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3544/#review4864
---
Ship it!
lgtm -- modulo trailing whitespace.
- Paul
On 2012-02-07
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3544/#review4862
---
Ship it!
Fix the whitespace and you are good to go!
- Ryan
On 2012
Thanks Jesse for replying. I've created a patch for this specific issue,
but when looking at this further, I see that there are additional
inconsistencies with the handling if the authorization is not NONE.
If a GET method is requested, and Authorization is not NONE, and there is
no refresh inte
I agree, we probably should be using the container api to register the
endpoints.
From: Ryan J Baxter/Westford/IBM@IRIS
To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
Cc: Dan Dumont/Westford/IBM@Lotus
Date: 02/06/2012 09:44 PM
Subject:Re: [QUESTION] Any reason why the actions container mixin
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3544/#review4858
---
Ship it!
Looks like some whitespace is still popping up, but other th
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3544/
---
(Updated 2012-02-07 10:42:50.013242)
Review request for shindig.
Changes
-
17 matches
Mail list logo
