You shouldn't need to provide your own guice modules to use customized versions of shindig.properties and container.js -- if you just put your customized copies under /your-shindig-app/WEB-INF/classes they'll end up in the classpath ahead of the versions bundled in the shindig-common jar. I'll caveat that by saying I've only tried it in Tomcat, but I'm pretty sure the classloader behavior is pretty well defined by the servlet spec and would expect it to be the same in other containers as well.
We've been using that method for our shindig implementation since the pre-1.0 version and its worked out pretty well. We run the standard shindig build and then take the resulting shindig-* jar files and copy them over to another project where we apply our customizations. In our shindig-extensions project we have customized versions of web.xml, shindig.properties, container.js, implementations of the SPI's for social data which we wire in via custom guice modules, etc... Hope that helps! --Jesse -----Original Message----- From: Ryan J Baxter [mailto:rjbax...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 4:15 PM To: dev@shindig.apache.org Subject: Re: shindig.BaseIfrGadget Constructor Thanks for the input John. So, my original assumption is correct then? I can provide my own properties guice module in the web.xml which loads my own properties file and Shindig will use those properties even after I have built Shindig? Maxwell, I am working on a similar project where we are investigating how to include Shindig in an existing app, so being able to configure Shindig after we have built it, is very important for us. Also this thread is kind of getting away from my original question, but I appreciate this discussion as well. Does anyone else have any thoughts on my original question? Its a small change and I am willing to make it. -Ryan Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com Phone: 978-899-3041 developerWorks Profile From: John Hjelmstad <fa...@google.com> To: dev@shindig.apache.org Date: 12/15/2010 03:46 PM Subject: Re: shindig.BaseIfrGadget Constructor The default resource path is "shindig.properties" -- PropertiesModule just ends up delegating to ClassLoader.getResource(...) to load it. CL.gR() in turn loads in Classpath-preferential order, so you could just stick your own shindig.properties file earlier in the classpath than the JAR in which it's packaged by default. Alternately, you could your own PropertiesModule, or if you don't need the properties remove its binding. Best, John On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Maxwell <mchiar...@gmail.com> wrote: > Yes, the problem is, it reads from shindig.properties and this file is in > shindig-common.jar, if you want or have to change a property you can not. > > I think a better approach is remove this file and the container.js from > common, the app must be responsible to put configuration files in the > classpath, will be to much easier to do changes like the app context. > > I know you guys normally use shindig project as base to create a new app, > but some people like me, have to include shindig in a app, not as the main > structure, > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 15/12/2010, at 18:16, Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Actually the PropertiesModule does load all the key-value pairs from > > shindig.properties. > > > > Take a look at PropertiesModule.readPropertyFile(). > > > > - Henry > > > > On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM, Ryan J Baxter <rjbax...@us.ibm.com> > wrote: > >> Your right, this is my inexperience shining through here. I thought the > >> PropertiesModule actually loaded all the properties from > >> shindig.properties, but I guess not. It looks like its just used to set > >> the values of shindig.port and shindig.host. So there is no way to > change > >> the property values set in shindig.properties after you have built > >> shindig? > >> > >> -Ryan > >> > >> Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com > >> Phone: 978-899-3041 <tel:+19788993041> > >> developerWorks Profile > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Maxwell <mchiar...@gmail.com> > >> To: "dev@shindig.apache.org" <dev@shindig.apache.org> > >> Date: 12/15/2010 02:41 PM > >> Subject: Re: shindig.BaseIfrGadget Constructor > >> > >> > >> > >> Yes you can use your own version of container.js, but I do not think you > >> can use the same for shindig.properties. How could you do that? > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On 15/12/2010, at 17:23, "Ryan J Baxter" <rjbax...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> > >>> I am not so worried about container.js and shindig.properties being in > a > >> > >>> common jar because its possible to point to your own versions of these, > >>> right? My understanding is that shindig.properties is loaded from a > >> guice > >>> module. shindig.properties also contains a property that points to the > >>> container.js file you want to use. So you can create your own guice > >>> module which loads your own shindig.properties file and that > >>> shindig.properties file can point to your own container.js file. If I > >> am > >>> wrong, please let me know, because then that will cause more issues for > >>> me. > >>> > >>> To my original point in the email, I just find the way it is currently > >>> coded to cause people to have to do more work than they should to > >>> implement their own container. Would anyone be against me opening a > bug > >> > >>> for this and fixing it? > >>> > >>> -Ryan > >>> > >>> Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com > >>> Phone: 978-899-3041 <tel:+19788993041> > >>> developerWorks Profile > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> From: Maxwell <mchiar...@gmail.com> > >>> To: "dev@shindig.apache.org" <dev@shindig.apache.org> > >>> Date: 12/15/2010 02:16 PM > >>> Subject: Re: shindig.BaseIfrGadget Constructor > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> You are right, if you want to run shindig in a non-root context, you > >> must. > >>> Override the constructor, copy the code and change the serverBase. > >>> > >>> That's bad, another thing that is bad about this is the fact you have > >>> container.js and shindig.properties in common jar. > >>> > >>> If you want to create a new project and set shindig as dependence, you > >>> will have a lot of workaround to do that. > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone > >>> > >>> On 15/12/2010, at 17:03, "Ryan J Baxter" <rjbax...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I have a question about the constructor for shindig.BaseIfrGadget in > >>>> shindig-container.js which is part of the feature shindig.container. > >> Why > >>> > >>>> do we set the serverBase_ variable to '/gadgets/' in the constructor > of > >> > >>>> this object? Because of the way this is coded it makes it hard for > >>>> objects extending shindig.BaseIfrGadget to override serverBase_. For > >>>> example, even if you wanted to override serverBase_ in the opt_params > >>>> passed into the constructor, you wouldn't be able to because after we > >>> add > >>>> the params to the object we just set serverBase_ to '/gadgets/'. The > >>> only > >>>> way to extend shindig.BaseIfrGadget and to override serverBase_ is to > >>>> never call the super constructor and instead put the code from the > >>>> constructor of shindig.BaseIfrGadget in the constructor of your > >>> extending > >>>> class and set serverBase_ to whatever value you want. > >>>> > >>>> Wouldn't it be cleaner to not set serverBase_ in the > >>> shindig.BaseIfrGadget > >>>> constructor and instead have it as a member variable to the class > >>> itself? > >>>> > >>>> -Ryan > >>>> > >>>> Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com > >>>> Phone: 978-899-3041 <tel:+19788993041> > >>>> developerWorks Profile > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Thanks, > > Henry >
