+1 ! This would be great. As an aside, one of the discussions that keeps popping up is if, once we get the common container in a good state, we should look at bringing those APIs into the OpenSocial spec as a standard. This might help with compliance etc... The more we build on this the better.
-Mark W. On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 1:55 PM, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>wrote: > HI Michael, > > Maybe we should swap the sample container feature to use the common > container feature instead in the Shindig sample container page. > > This will help flush out issues with common container code in Shindig env. > > Thoughts? > > - Henry > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Michael Hermanto <mherma...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 5:34 PM, Andy B Smith <and...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> I've just started to look at the container feature that was recently > added > >> per https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1335. I tried to > get > >> this working in a test page but am now hitting a 404 for the > /api/rpc/cs. > >> Is this simply a configuration change or a new service for the common > >> container? > >> > > > > Admittedly, I never tried running this strictly in Shindig, as Google > > extends this class and I work from that version. The end point should be > the > > same as any JSON-RPC endpoint that Shindig uses (/api/rpc) and that > should > > be routed to org.apache.shindig.gadgets.servlet.GadgetsHandler, assuming > > that standard @Service and @Operation works as intended. The extra "/cs" > is > > just a sub-path that we use at Google to indicate cookie-safe JSON RPC > > endpoint (that do not kill cookies). > > > > Feel free to change > > shindig-features/src/main/javascript/features/container/service.js:45 > from > > /api/rpc/cs to /api/rpc. > > > > Alternatively, when you instantiate the container, do -- > > var config = {}; > > config[shindig.container.ServiceConfig.API_PATH] = '/api/rpc'; > > var container = new shindig.container.Container(config); > > > > Also, moving forward, I'd like to know what the thoughts are for building > >> on this feature. Is this something that will eventually replace the > >> sample-container? > > > > > > I never worked with sample container, but the thoughts behind common > > container is to provide a lightweight gadget-and-container framework, > where > > a page can become a standardized gadget container, pop-in/-out gadgets, > with > > one line of JS. Thoughts on this are more fully explained when this > feature > > was first announced, > > here< > http://www.devcomments.com/Shindig-gadget-and-container-framework-at168929.htm > > > > . > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > Henry >
