3 ms·

after having been involved in multiple products that relied on facebook, i would not be surprised if this was just their way to let developers know they discont

after having been involved in multiple products that relied on facebook, i would not be surprised if this was just their way to let developers know they discontinued the sdk. But don't worry they write a blog post when they bring out the successor in a few months.

mrweasel 5y ago
I don't know or use the Facebook SDK, but would it be possible to simply disable it and continue running, but without the features it provides? Previously I've used Google Tag Manager to simply disable external Javascript service when they went down. It saved us multiple time, because we worked with small service providers who doesn't really know anything about the internet, but also in two cases where AWS was unavailable. Rather than having to do a code change and a redeployment, we could just disable a 3. party temporarily. Maybe the Facebook SDK is typically integrated to deeply to be something you can just disable. It the other comments are correct, and it's down frequently, then maybe you should design to run without it, even if it's just for short periods of time.
- capableweb 5y ago
  > I don't know or use the Facebook SDK, but would it be possible to simply disable it and continue running, but without the features it provides? The beauty (or ugly, for some) of JS is that it depends on how you use it. If you just call the initialize function (which seems to be down, somehow?) of the FB SDK in the top scope of your page, all code below it is invalid. If you're including it as a script, that script will fail. If it's in a response to some onload event, the rest of the onload body will not execute either. Not to say you should always expect errors from any 3rd party libraries unless you can guarantee it won't throw, that's just basic error handling.
dathinab 5y ago
I wanted to write: "Again? They don't learn to use robust patterns do they". But if they discontinued it, then they have little reasons to put money into improving it.

mrweasel 5y ago

I don't know or use the Facebook SDK, but would it be possible to simply disable it and continue running, but without the features it provides? Previously I've used Google Tag Manager to simply disable external Javascript service when they went down. It saved us multiple time, because we worked with small service providers who doesn't really know anything about the internet, but also in two cases where AWS was unavailable. Rather than having to do a code change and a redeployment, we could just disable a 3. party temporarily. Maybe the Facebook SDK is typically integrated to deeply to be something you can just disable. It the other comments are correct, and it's down frequently, then maybe you should design to run without it, even if it's just for short periods of time.

capableweb 5y ago
> I don't know or use the Facebook SDK, but would it be possible to simply disable it and continue running, but without the features it provides? The beauty (or ugly, for some) of JS is that it depends on how you use it. If you just call the initialize function (which seems to be down, somehow?) of the FB SDK in the top scope of your page, all code below it is invalid. If you're including it as a script, that script will fail. If it's in a response to some onload event, the rest of the onload body will not execute either. Not to say you should always expect errors from any 3rd party libraries unless you can guarantee it won't throw, that's just basic error handling.

dathinab 5y ago

I wanted to write: "Again? They don't learn to use robust patterns do they". But if they discontinued it, then they have little reasons to put money into improving it.