[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 (~jdoyle@pool-96-233-74-235.bstnma.fios.verizon.net) 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: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/blob/master/src/pipeline/adapters/rest.js#L267
[09:41:28] <+kborchers> then i apply() their supplied callback https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/blob/master/src/pipeline/adapters/rest.js#L290
[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 :)