[aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Matthias Wessendorf
Hi Kris,

overall I like the new JS doc (see [1]). Looks pretty nice! However,
here is some feedback on the new JS API doc!

* http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
- add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
sure if that should be exposed...

I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
(compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
to pass in an AeroGear object)

* On the different adapters:
Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?



Fixed a little typo:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js

Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6


Greetings,
Matthias


[1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/


--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Matthias Wessendorf
One more...

> * http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
> - add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
> sure if that should be exposed...

wouldn't it be more logical if the add/remove were documented on the
different modules ?

http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.DataManager.html

I think users would benefit if the add/remove was mentioned on each
module, instead of on the 'global' AeroGear.html file.

I think the current way maybe a bit confusing...




>
> I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
> END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
> (compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
> to pass in an AeroGear object)
>
> * On the different adapters:
> Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
> the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?
>
>
>
> Fixed a little typo:
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js
>
> Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6
>
>
> Greetings,
> Matthias
>
>
> [1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Matthias Wessendorf
A few more things.

* I am missing the documentation for the arrays that store the
different adapters (e.g. stores, pipes, modules)
- For instance, the 'pipes' array is currently only mentioned in a code snippet:
http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.Pipeline.adapters.Rest.html

- The Pipeline Module itself does not talk about it (similar in the
DataManager and Auth modules)

* Is the dataTypeType in here a typo?
http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.Auth.adapters.Rest.html

* missing setting values:
Looking at:
http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.Auth.adapters.Rest.html

I think the 'agAuth' or 'tokenName' values are missing in the documentation.


NOTE: I am more than happy to file JIRAs for EACH of the above items,
but wanted to raise them here before... since I wasn't 100% sure if
things were done on intention or not!


-Matthias


On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One more...
>
>> * http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
>> - add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
>> sure if that should be exposed...
>
> wouldn't it be more logical if the add/remove were documented on the
> different modules ?
>
> http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.DataManager.html
>
> I think users would benefit if the add/remove was mentioned on each
> module, instead of on the 'global' AeroGear.html file.
>
> I think the current way maybe a bit confusing...
>
>
>
>
>>
>> I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
>> END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
>> (compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
>> to pass in an AeroGear object)
>>
>> * On the different adapters:
>> Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
>> the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?
>>
>>
>>
>> Fixed a little typo:
>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js
>>
>> Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>> [1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Kris Borchers
In reply to this post by Matthias Wessendorf

On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi Kris,
>
> overall I like the new JS doc (see [1]). Looks pretty nice! However,
> here is some feedback on the new JS API doc!
>
> * http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
> - add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
> sure if that should be exposed…

True. I will need to think of a different way of exposing them to the other modules without making them public. That could be fine. I might have to make AeroGear more than just a namespace and have the other modules implement AeroGear rather than just extend it and put those methods on the prototype. I'll have to think on it.

>
> I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
> END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
> (compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
> to pass in an AeroGear object)

Based on the previous point, I'll have to think on how to make that work. It could be useful but it's also a pretty standard thing in JS so not a big deal if we don't expose it as many app devs already add something like that to their apps.

>
> * On the different adapters:
> Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
> the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?
>
True. It probably helps to have the docs inline but don't need to include them in the generated docs. I can just add @private to them and they won't be included.
>
>
> Fixed a little typo:
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js

Thanks!

>
> Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6

Thanks, merged.

>
>
> Greetings,
> Matthias
>
>
> [1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Kris Borchers
In reply to this post by Matthias Wessendorf

On Oct 9, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:

> One more...
>
>> * http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
>> - add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
>> sure if that should be exposed...
>
> wouldn't it be more logical if the add/remove were documented on the
> different modules ?
>
> http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.DataManager.html
>
> I think users would benefit if the add/remove was mentioned on each
> module, instead of on the 'global' AeroGear.html file.
>
> I think the current way maybe a bit confusing...
>
Maybe … I hate having to duplicate those docs across all of those files so if one changes they all have to be updated. I'll think about it with the review of the previous e-mail's points

>
>
>
>>
>> I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
>> END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
>> (compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
>> to pass in an AeroGear object)
>>
>> * On the different adapters:
>> Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
>> the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?
>>
>>
>>
>> Fixed a little typo:
>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js
>>
>> Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>> [1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Matthias Wessendorf
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Kris Borchers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> One more...
>>
>>> * http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
>>> - add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
>>> sure if that should be exposed...
>>
>> wouldn't it be more logical if the add/remove were documented on the
>> different modules ?
>>
>> http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.DataManager.html
>>
>> I think users would benefit if the add/remove was mentioned on each
>> module, instead of on the 'global' AeroGear.html file.
>>
>> I think the current way maybe a bit confusing...
>>
> Maybe … I hate having to duplicate those docs across all of those files so if one changes they all have to be updated. I'll think about it with the review of the previous e-mail's points

I understand the coding behind it - but IMO it's pretty odd to have
them documented on the root.
If you just look at the DataManager.html doc file (for instance), hard
to see that you could even use add/remove.

IMO the current solution (documentation) is not ideal. I think it's confusing.

Can you show 'inherited' functions ?



>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
>>> END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
>>> (compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
>>> to pass in an AeroGear object)
>>>
>>> * On the different adapters:
>>> Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
>>> the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fixed a little typo:
>>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js
>>>
>>> Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
>>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Kris Borchers
In reply to this post by Kris Borchers

On Oct 9, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Kris Borchers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> Hi Kris,
>>
>> overall I like the new JS doc (see [1]). Looks pretty nice! However,
>> here is some feedback on the new JS API doc!
>>
>> * http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
>> - add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
>> sure if that should be exposed…
>
> True. I will need to think of a different way of exposing them to the other modules without making them public. That could be fine. I might have to make AeroGear more than just a namespace and have the other modules implement AeroGear rather than just extend it and put those methods on the prototype. I'll have to think on it.

JIRA please … you can probably just include the next point about isArray in the same JIRA

>
>>
>> I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
>> END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
>> (compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
>> to pass in an AeroGear object)
>
> Based on the previous point, I'll have to think on how to make that work. It could be useful but it's also a pretty standard thing in JS so not a big deal if we don't expose it as many app devs already add something like that to their apps.
>
>>
>> * On the different adapters:
>> Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
>> the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?
>>
> True. It probably helps to have the docs inline but don't need to include them in the generated docs. I can just add @private to them and they won't be included.

JIRA please

>>
>>
>> Fixed a little typo:
>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js
>
> Thanks!
>
>>
>> Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6
>
> Thanks, merged.
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>> Matthias
>>
>>
>> [1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Kris Borchers
In reply to this post by Kris Borchers

On Oct 9, 2012, at 7:32 AM, Kris Borchers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 3:16 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> One more...
>>
>>> * http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
>>> - add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
>>> sure if that should be exposed...
>>
>> wouldn't it be more logical if the add/remove were documented on the
>> different modules ?
>>
>> http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.DataManager.html
>>
>> I think users would benefit if the add/remove was mentioned on each
>> module, instead of on the 'global' AeroGear.html file.
>>
>> I think the current way maybe a bit confusing...
>>
> Maybe … I hate having to duplicate those docs across all of those files so if one changes they all have to be updated. I'll think about it with the review of the previous e-mail's points

Also please add this to the first JIRA as well

>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
>>> END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
>>> (compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
>>> to pass in an AeroGear object)
>>>
>>> * On the different adapters:
>>> Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
>>> the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Fixed a little typo:
>>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js
>>>
>>> Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
>>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [aerogear-dev] [JS Doc] feedback on the new JS-Doc

Matthias Wessendorf
In reply to this post by Kris Borchers
Great!

the typeType typo, I fixed already:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/2d430b2d048f80398b8d0558373860816428f38f

Other than that - new JIRAs:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-528
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-529
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-530
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-531

-M


On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Kris Borchers <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> On Oct 9, 2012, at 7:29 AM, Kris Borchers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 9, 2012, at 2:29 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kris,
>>>
>>> overall I like the new JS doc (see [1]). Looks pretty nice! However,
>>> here is some feedback on the new JS API doc!
>>>
>>> * http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/AeroGear.html
>>> - add/remove/ajax: These are internal helpers/utilities, right? Not
>>> sure if that should be exposed…
>>
>> True. I will need to think of a different way of exposing them to the other modules without making them public. That could be fine. I might have to make AeroGear more than just a namespace and have the other modules implement AeroGear rather than just extend it and put those methods on the prototype. I'll have to think on it.
>
> JIRA please … you can probably just include the next point about isArray in the same JIRA
>>
>>>
>>> I think the 'isArray' is a bit different => I can see that some
>>> END-USER finds 'AeroGear.isArray(argument)' pretty useful!
>>> (compared to something like AeroGear.ajax(...), where you already need
>>> to pass in an AeroGear object)
>>
>> Based on the previous point, I'll have to think on how to make that work. It could be useful but it's also a pretty standard thing in JS so not a big deal if we don't expose it as many app devs already add something like that to their apps.
>>
>>>
>>> * On the different adapters:
>>> Regarding their privileged functions => Do we want to expose/document
>>> the privileged methods? Or 'just' the public methods?
>>>
>> True. It probably helps to have the docs inline but don't need to include them in the generated docs. I can just add @private to them and they won't be included.
>
> JIRA please
>>>
>>>
>>> Fixed a little typo:
>>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/commit/3ed416af824d2b398a7db8b276ca46bf66fc2603#src/pipeline/aerogear.pipeline.js
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>>
>>> Added a PR for two very simple fixes on the JS lib:
>>> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/pull/6
>>
>> Thanks, merged.
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>>
>>> [1] http://staging.aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-js/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev



--
Matthias Wessendorf

blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev