Comments on: First looks at OpenSocial: part 4 (content for persistence data) http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/ XML and the Web. Mon, 08 Sep 2008 16:36:51 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: david http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31305 david Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:23:58 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31305 Brendan: I've been thinking along the same lines. They've already gone part-way there with GData, and hosting apps isn't that different from hosting videos on YouTube -- it's something that most amateurs couldn't manage. Brendan: I’ve been thinking along the same lines. They’ve already gone part-way there with GData, and hosting apps isn’t that different from hosting videos on YouTube — it’s something that most amateurs couldn’t manage.

]]> By: Brendan http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31300 Brendan Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:37:23 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31300 How about a third idea, that you could "submit" your app to the OpenSocial container and it would run entirely server-side? Then it would obviously need some persistent storage somewhere, and you might as well use a shared protocol... if Google et al are thinking like this, it starts to make more sense. I agree that the protocol is very bloated, but even this isn't quite as much of an issue if most of the network chatter is local to the OpenSocial container. How about a third idea, that you could “submit” your app to the OpenSocial container and it would run entirely server-side? Then it would obviously need some persistent storage somewhere, and you might as well use a shared protocol… if Google et al are thinking like this, it starts to make more sense.

I agree that the protocol is very bloated, but even this isn’t quite as much of an issue if most of the network chatter is local to the OpenSocial container.

]]> By: Lance Lavandowska http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31178 Lance Lavandowska Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:45:47 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31178 I'd read someone else talk about how GData is a bastardization (my word) of Atom, but I haven't ever looked at GData myself. If this is at all indicative of the rest of GData, I am very disappointed in Google. They should have created their own XML schemas, or used RDF/XML instead. Your earlier posts contained some puzzling usage of Atom, but this is just plain obscene. I’d read someone else talk about how GData is a bastardization (my word) of Atom, but I haven’t ever looked at GData myself. If this is at all indicative of the rest of GData, I am very disappointed in Google. They should have created their own XML schemas, or used RDF/XML instead. Your earlier posts contained some puzzling usage of Atom, but this is just plain obscene.

]]> By: david http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31176 david Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:39:26 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31176 As I explained after the list, I think the vision thing is very unhealthy for specs, especially v.1 specs -- it's much better to concentrate on real problems of the present than speculative problems of the future. As I explained after the list, I think the vision thing is very unhealthy for specs, especially v.1 specs — it’s much better to concentrate on real problems of the present than speculative problems of the future.

]]> By: John Cowan http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31169 John Cowan Thu, 08 Nov 2007 22:14:10 +0000 http://www.megginson.com/blogs/quoderat/2007/11/08/first-looks-at-opensocial-part-4-content-for-persistence-data/#comment-31169 Why is #1 not admirable? (I see why #2 wouldn't be.) Why is #1 not admirable? (I see why #2 wouldn’t be.)

]]>