+1 But in addition to adding the ability to set the owner/viewer and working with caja I think we should also get the common container to use proper moduleId's in security tokens (all security tokens in common container currently get minted with a moduleId of 0). This will cause implementers issues in a number of places -- the first of which that immediately comes to mind is with the persistence of OAuth tokens. The Shindig OAuthStore persists OAuth tokens on a per gadget instance basis using the moduleId in the security token as part of the unique identifier, so without proper moduleId's in security tokens all instances of a given gadget spec will end up sharing OAuth tokens. Another issue that comes to mind is that the gadgets.Prefs.getModuleId API won't work properly without real moduleId's -- so anything that relies on that (like using the moduleId as a key into appdata to store appdata on a per gadget instance basis) will also fail.
I've got a patch up for review that adds proper handling of moduleId's for security tokens to common container that I'd love to get some feedback on. It's still a little rough but if I can get some feedback from the community that it looks like it is moving in the right direction I'd be glad to do the last bit of work left to finish it up: https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/ I'll add this information as a comment to the JIRA Mark created for retiring the old sample container as well. >-----Original Message----- >From: Ryan J Baxter [mailto:rjbax...@us.ibm.com] >Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 9:17 AM >To: dev@shindig.apache.org >Cc: OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification Discussion; Paul Lindner >Subject: Re: deprecating sample container.... > >+1 > >-Ryan > >Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com >Phone: 978-899-3041 >developerWorks Profile > > > >From: Mark Weitzel <weitzelm.w...@gmail.com> >To: dev@shindig.apache.org, OpenSocial and Gadgets Specification >Discussion <opensocial-and-gadgets-s...@googlegroups.com>, >Cc: Paul Lindner <plind...@google.com> >Date: 08/30/2011 09:15 AM >Subject: deprecating sample container.... > > > >Based on the work that andrew and others have done around the common >container, I think we are in a position to make the example container the >show case for opensocial. I'd propose that we deprecate the example >container in favor of the common container. > >In looking at the two, we may want the ability to set the owner and >viewer, >and maybe a bit with caja. Even without that, the capability of the new >container is far superior than the old one. I'd like to clean up this >section of the code. What does everyone else think? > >-Mark W. > >
