oauth.popup undefined?

[Randy Hudson]

The spec says to do:

new gadgets.oauth.Popup(...)

but that object is undefined.  Is there some undocumented feature that needs to be required for this to work?

[ddumont]

Yes, require the "oauthpopup" feature.

[Randy Hudson]

I'm looking at the 2.5.0 Core Gadget Specification and I don't see any mention of such a feature.

[ddumont]

Yeah.  We do need to do a better job cross-linking apis and our feature names and we currently have an issue for that.

I found it by looking in shindig.

[Mark W.]

At one point, we talked about having an annotation in the spec that talked about the features in shindig you would require. I think the reason we didn't do that was because it would tie the spec to shinding. Alternately, we could refactor shindig to more closely align with the spec. Either way, it's messy.

[Craig McClanahan]

On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Mark W. <weitze...@gmail.com> wrote:

At one point, we talked about having an annotation in the spec that talked about the features in shindig you would require. I think the reason we didn't do that was because it would tie the spec to shinding. Alternately, we could refactor shindig to more closely align with the spec. Either way, it's messy.

Would it make sense for the spec to actually declare feature names that provide functionality defined in the spec?  If not, it's going to be extremely difficult to write apps that are portable across containers.

Craig

[Ryan Baxter]

I agree with Craig, that seems like the best approach.

[Henry Saputra]

+1

It's getting harder for new devs to figure out which feature provide which functionalities

- Henry

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to opensocial-and-gadg...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to opensocial-an...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Dan Dumont]

I have no problem with tying shindig's current feature names to the spec and proposing rules that all future specced features must specify a feature name.
It's pretty useless to say the software can do something without saying how to use it.   We will never get portability unless we get the feature names into the spec.