[OS 3] Separation Of Container And Gadget

[Ryan Baxter]

As a read through some of the specifications especially core gadget,
there is a lot of language about what the container should/must do.
This seems odd to me especially in the core gadget case where the spec
is supposed to be targeting the gadget. Me as a gadget developer does
not really care about what the container should/must do. As part of
the cleanup for OpenSocial 3.0 I was thinking we should really make
sure we separate the container and gadget responsibilities into
separate specs. We already have the core container spec incubating
(which it itself needs to be updated to reflect newer updates to the
common container) so it makes sense, to me anyways, to move the
container responsibilities from the other specs to the core container
spec. This would simplify all the specs and make it easier to find
things, both for gadget and container developers. Thoughts? If we
have general agreement I will start a proposal on the wiki and start
to list sections from the spec we might need to consider moving.

[Matthew Marum]

I'd like to see the specification structured more by use cases than the architectural components.

Hosting applications?  Here is the container specification.  Building applications?  Here is the gadget spec.  Integrating social data?  Here are the Social APIs.

I like the way OAuth 2.0 is structured around different Flows that meet certain use cases.  There should be a flow within the Gadget specification for building EE gadgets, for example.  A different flow for how to host EE gadgets.

Matt

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec?hl=en.

[Mark W.]

+1 

my only hesitation is that i'm not sure we want to bring the container out in 3.0. the primary reason i say this is because we (jive) are now starting to pick it up. i'd like to have two full implementations when we graduate it. i don't want to rule it out--by mid summer we may all be comfortable with it. however, my thinking as of now is to make the container the ONLY thing in 3.1. 

regardless, getting things in the right place would be good.

[Andrew Davis]

Mark

Two implemented? Or do you mean two consumers? 

Ibm and google are consuming cc is my understanding. Is jive re implementing cc?

Sent from my iPhone

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/6NS84SAnhT4J.

[Mark W.]

we are starting to look at it much more closely to see if it will work for us. 

has paul/fargo stated google is using it?

[Andrew Davis]

Google authored the CC.... and was using it is my understanding from when I met with Paul and Faro last spring.  

--Andrew

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Mark W. <weitze...@gmail.com> wrote:

we are starting to look at it much more closely to see if it will work for us. 

has paul/fargo stated google is using it?

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/GKTOUB905v0J.

[Ryan Baxter]

Andrew, actually I think Mike Hermanto, the original author, said
Google was not use it yet...of course that was a year ago things may
have changed.

I wonder if Mitre is using it? Matt or Jesse care to comment on when/
if Mitre will adopt the common container?

Regardless of how many people are using it, I hope the fact that it
may remain in an incubating state would not preclude us from
separating functionality.

@Matt, I am open to the idea use case based spec, seems like an
interesting idea.

On Feb 6, 7:55 pm, Andrew Davis <andreweda...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Google authored the CC.... and was using it is my understanding from when I
> met with Paul and Faro last spring.
>
> --Andrew
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Mark W. <weitzelm.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > we are starting to look at it much more closely to see if it will work for
> > us.
> > has paul/fargo stated google is using it?
>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
> > To view this discussion on the web visit

> >https://groups.google.com/d/msg/opensocial-and-gadgets-spec/-/GKTOUB9...
> > .

[Matt F.]

We are using CC in Apache Rave, which we are in turn building on top of for a few internal use cases.  

[Ryan Baxter]

Awesome thanks Matt. That gives us at least 2 companies/projects
using it. Actually I know Doug Davies from the Shindig dev list is
using it as well. Doug could you confirm?