So in an environment that wants to serve both cajoled and uncajoled gadgets from the same gadget-server, the caja=1 switch is going to be what distinguishes the two long term?
2008/7/28 Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > btw - if we are confident, or if you just want to try out only needing the > caja=1 in the url, then the opensocial-current/feature.xml line 23 just > needs to be commented in. Then gadgets don't need the require. > > > On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Cassie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If we were completely confident in caja then the require feature wouldn't >> be needed. caja would be included and turned on all of the time. When caja=0 >> the gadget would not be cajoled and so caja shouldn't have any affect. If >> caja=1 then the gadget would be cajoled and caja would do all its magic >> goodness. >> >> So... are we confident that caja is ready to handle both cajoled and >> non-cajoled gadgets without causing any issues? >> >> - Cassie >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 11:04 AM, Mike Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> Shindiggers, >>> >>> There are two gates a gadget has to pass through to get cajoled right >>> now. >>> (1) The enableCaja bit specified via ?caja=1 in the URL which adds the >>> CajaContentRewriter to the rewriter chain. >>> (2) The <Require feature="caja"> specified in the gadget spec which >>> causes caja.js and friends to be loaded. >>> >>> There doesn't seem to be any case where (1) should be different from >>> (2). Can we get rid of the need for both? >>> >>> I don't see an easy way for the content rewriter to be conditionally >>> added based on the presence of a <Require> >>> element, since that decision seems to be made before the gadget spec is >>> parsed, but I don't know the code that well. Any ideas? >>> >>> cheers, >>> mike >>> >> >> >
