Well I think it depends on who gets to make the cajoled vs non-cajoled decision. Long term my thinking was that gadget authors won't get to choose. Probably 99% of them will be cajoled and some certain white listed or special gadgets will stay non-cajoled if the container wants them to. Because the container decides then the url is the best place for the switch.
On the other hand, if the gadget developer gets to choose whether or not they are cajoled then the logic should be turned on by a require tag. Short term maybe this makes more sense... so that the developers can test it out in live containers? Or - you could say that they can already test cajoling out in shindig... so maybe they don't need control. Anyway, so I was basically thinking that - container choice = url and gadget choice = require. So, who gets the power? :) - Cassie On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Mike Samuel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>> >>> >> >
