Luke and I had a discussion on IRC about this. Basically, the more I think about it, the more I think most of what is happening in AeroGear.ajax is either already handled by jQuery.ajax or can be factored out into a smaller helper or merged into the specific part of the library it was meant to help. This will have the advantages of simplifying the lib to make it easier to grok, allow the decoupling of AeroGear.Auth and AeroGear.Pipeline (see and also could shrink the size of the library a bit as well.

Below is the IRC transcript from the conversation Luke and I had. Anyone have any other opinions?

[09:28:37] <+kborchers> lholmquist: need your opinion
[09:28:52] <+lholmquist>  kborchers: yes,  i agree
[09:28:56] <+lholmquist>  oh wait
[09:28:59] <+kborchers>  :)
[09:29:13] <+kborchers> lholmquist: how much have you looked at / understand what is going on in AeroGear.ajax?
[09:29:29] <+kborchers> lholmquist: the reason i ask is i am questioning its existence
[09:29:59] <+lholmquist>  kborchers: a bit,  i would need to look at it to refresh my memory
[09:30:28]  jdoyle ( joined the channel.
[09:30:41] <+lholmquist>  kborchers: which pieces are you thinking should go?
[09:30:47] <+kborchers> lholmquist: i was thinking about it last night and now that i read through it, the more i look at it the more i find myself saying "Doesn't jQuery already do that for us?"
[09:32:10] <+kborchers>  there are only 2 pieces i'm not sure about
[09:32:12] <+kborchers>  1
[09:32:25] <+kborchers>  the POST/PUT of JSON formatted data being stringified
[09:32:26] <+lholmquist>  there is the Auth stuff in there
[09:32:27] <+kborchers>  2
[09:32:42] <+kborchers>  the auth check to prevent unnecessary http requests
[09:32:52] <+kborchers> #2 i know is not done by jQuery.ajax but
[09:33:13] <+lholmquist>  could that be done somewhere else then?
[09:33:18] <+kborchers>  i think that could be moved to auth, and auth refactored to decouple it from pipeline (which i want to do anyway)
[09:33:45] <+kborchers>  and i think the post put stuff could just happen in pipeline
[09:34:39] <+kborchers>  i think i'm going to play with this today and see if i can kill AeroGear.ajax
[09:34:41] <+lholmquist>  all the promise stuff is handled by jquery anyway isn't it
[09:35:18] <+kborchers> lholmquist: yeah, except for rejecting it immediately based on auth on line 58 of aerogear.utilities.js
[09:35:53]   abstractj is now known as abstractj|away
[09:36:05] <+kborchers>  but like i said
[09:36:10] <+kborchers>  i think that can move into Auth
[09:36:19] <+kborchers>  i think this is doable
[09:36:47] <+kborchers> lholmquist: any concerns that this may be a bad way to go right now?
[09:36:57] <+kborchers>  removing AeroGear.ajax i mean
[09:37:16] <+kborchers>  it should cut or file size a bit too :)
[09:37:20] <+kborchers>  s/or/our
[09:38:29] <+lholmquist>  kborchers: i don't think so,  the majority of what it does is parse the returned data to a proper format it looks like
[09:39:30] <+kborchers>  which can be handled in the callbacks
[09:39:44] <+kborchers>  ok
[09:39:58] <+lholmquist>  that is true,  but is that an extra step for the dev?
[09:40:19] <+kborchers>  nope, because i have my own callback which runs first and then calls theirs :)
[09:41:05]  csadilek (csadilek@nat/redhat/x-mrudioyuhbqnjezq) joined the channel.
[09:41:12] <+kborchers> lholmquist:
[09:41:28] <+kborchers>  then i apply() their supplied callback
[09:41:34] <+qmx>  kborchers: you mean after the release right?
[09:41:39] <+kborchers> qmx: oh yeah
[09:41:42] <+kborchers>  not for this one
[09:41:59] <+kborchers>  we've already tagged
[09:42:01] <+kborchers> qmx: ^
[09:42:15] <+qmx>  kborchers: yeah, just remembered that
[09:42:19] qmx  brainfarted
[09:42:21] <+kborchers>  :)
[09:42:26] <+lholmquist>  kborchers: i don't see where the data gets parsed here,  
[09:42:46]   jamezp is now known as jamezp_afk
[09:42:49] <+kborchers> lholmquist: it doesn't because it happens in AeroGear.ajax right now it would move in there though
[09:43:36] <+lholmquist>  kborchers: ah,  thats what i was missing.   Then wouldn't we have to repeat code for the other methods?
[09:43:48]  mbg (~marius@redhat/jboss/mbg) left IRC. (Quit: mbg)
[09:44:35] <+kborchers> lholmquist: we could factor that out into its own utility instead of bundling it into the ajax one
[09:44:42] <+kborchers>  then it could be reused
[09:44:45] <+sblanc>  kborchers: lholmquist: If you write this all down in to a JIRA I will be happy to give a third opinion :)
[09:45:41] <+lholmquist>  kborchers: that could work, in fact,  would probably be better
[09:46:01] <+kborchers> sblanc: sure, i will create a jira. are you saying you have another opinion or you want some time to think on it to comment?
[09:46:26] <+sblanc>  kborchers: Want some time to think about it :)
[09:48:15] <+lholmquist>  kborchers: atm, the auth methods, login, enroll,  don't do any data parsing since they don't go through Aerogear.ajax, should we add this new utility method to that once it's written?
[09:50:15] <+kborchers> lholmquist: maybe probably not sure yet. :)  i think the main reason i didn't use AeroGear.ajax was because it did an auth check and that wouldn't be good during auth :)