Oh, nm, I completely misread that.
I dunno though... it seems like that code could be pretty confusing -
if it just gets fixed in 0.8 that we won't have code ugliness :)
- Cassie
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alejandro - this is exactly what the js is doing - the syntax is just
> condensed a little bit:
> return {'activities' : new opensocial.Collection(activities)};
>
> - Cassie
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Alejandro Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I am astonished (only a bit; "legacy code" was to be expected in the
> > jump from 0.5). And I am sorry I missed that line in the
> > specification; so it is true, the javascript is doing the right thing.
> >
> > I have raised issues 140 and 141 in
> > http://code.google.com/p/opensocial-resources/issues/list
> > as suggested.
> >
> > The report of the bug in JIRA could be closed, but instead I'd suggest
> the patch
> >
> > var activityCollection = new opensocial.Collection(activities);
> > activityCollection.activities = activityCollection;
> > return activityCollection;
> >
> > or whatever the javascript code is, to add a new property to an
> > object. In this way, we keep with the specification and we return too
> > a full featured Collection<activitity>.
> >
> > Alejandro
> >
> > 2008/4/9 Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >
> > > Ah, I see. Actually, if you look carefully, Shindig is doing the right
> > > thing in javascript. The spec specifically says "When processed,
> > > returns an object whose "activities" property is a
> > > Collection<Activity> object." so is you do getData.activities, that
> > > should be a collection.
> > >
> > > This is a relic from the 0.5 apis where there was also a "stream"
> > > property. So.. the spec is sorta weird, and should be fixed. But
> > > Shindig is doing the right thing in javascript.
> > >
> > > - Cassie
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Alejandro Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > > > just to clarify; the problem is not that there is not paging, the
> real
> > > > problem is that neither .getData().each() nor .getData().size work
> > > > when the answer is a collection of activities, while they do work
> when
> > > > the request is for a collection of persons.
> > > >
> > > > 2008/4/9 Alejandro Rivero <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > 2008/4/9 Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > So the Shindig java code is doing the right thing.
> > > > > > If we think activities should have paging, then someone
> should just
> > > > > > bring it up on the spec mailing list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Cassie
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yep, it is doing the right thing. The bug is in the javascript
> side, I
> > > > > just sent a report.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
