I believe (though I may be wrong) that it is safe to just use the URL of the gadget as the App ID. At least, that's what Java Shindig passes through to the AppDataService.
Regards, Mat On 3 August 2010 15:13, Gregg Horan <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm trying to implement some gadget configuration persistence mechanism in > our container, and I ~think~ I see how appData works, but wanted to get a > sanity check. I was confused where the appId came from, but from the > samplecontainer, it looks like it's not a server generated ID - but UI drive > from the samplecontainer.js/generateSecureToken. > > My goal is to support different settings for the same gadget that appears in > multiple containers (or multiple times in the same container). From what I > can tell, it looks like as long as I can develop a hash/ID on the client > side/js to make such a distinction, then I'm all set with the appData by > feeding it my own ID. This would be outside the gadget (in the container), > thus may not be supported if I deploy my gadgets to iGoogle - for example - > depending on their implementation. > > I'd appreciate any feedback if I've interpreted that correctly - or if > there's something I'm missing. > > Thanks. > Gregg > -- Mat Mannion Web Developer IT Services University of Warwick Coventry CV4 7AL Tel: 024 765 74433 Email: [email protected]
