Reading this post (http://www.networkworld.com/news/2009/121409-bank-antifraud-measures.html) confirms my decision not to join Facebook a correct one. Hell, if some corporate entity knows about your daughter-in-law, you should be scared!
Another aspect of the Google Apps Provisioning API that I’ve discovered has to do with adding an owner to a group.
In my last post I talked about paging the results retrieved from the list of groups. Here it has to do with adding an owner to a group.
So I’ve gotten my implementation done. How’d I know I got it right? Well, considering that I’ve got the implementation for adding/removing/retrieving members done and working correctly, my implementation for owner is more than likely to be correct as well.
So after I’ve gotten the code done up, I tried it but to no avail. The owner wasn’t added to the group. After a few moments of pondering, I began to wonder if it was my code that was wrong, and then it struck me – the function only works on added members! So I added a member then called the function on the member, and it worked!
Conversely, removing an owner from a group does not remove the user from the group. It removes the status of owner from the user in the group i.e. an owner of the group becomes a member of the group.
The documentation on the API did not mention anything about it at all. I’m just glad I didn’t waste 3 hours trying to debug my code. Phew!
Google Apps Provisioning API is a set of API that allows other programs to access stored on Google’s servers. This is done via the Atom Publishing Protocol and HTTP requests (what the industry terms general as a RESTful interface).
The set of data that Google exposes via the Provisioning API include the user accounts and groups and other related data.
Google has improved its groups mechanism not too long ago. With this came improvements to other Google properties such as Google Docs where sharing documents with groups is possible. Previously, this was not available because the original concept of a group in Google Apps is nothing more than an email list where emailing to the “group” allowed users in the “group” to receive the email as well. But this was all that version 1 of “groups” (technically known as an email list) could do.
It was supposed to be a headline-worthy cooperation between the world’s arguably most popular tech blog and a Singapore startup. Now it’s all going downhill. Why and how it came to this stage nobody will know for sure, as Arrington puts it, “Ultimately there are two sides to every story…”
But, if it were the case as Arrington described, the “shareholders” deserve this ending. Why squander away a chance to launch a product in a larger market by leveraging on a famed tech blog’s name and instead choose to have the whole of a much smaller pie? If greed was really the cause, I hope Arrington wins the suits against Fusion Garage.
But Fusion Garage deserves a chance to voice their side of the story. Maybe we’ll get to see something on Straits Times to hear from them what exactly transpired. I hope it’s not because they are unable to produce the software – I really look forward to a successful Singapore tech startup make good internationally.