Done!
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Stanton Sievers [mailto:ssiev...@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 3:58 PM
>To: dev@shindig.apache.org
>Subject: Re: SecurityTokenKeyFile
>
>Sounds good to me. +1
>
>
>
>From: Ryan J Baxter/Westford/IBM@Lotus
>To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
>Date: 11/22/2011 15:23
>Subject: Re: SecurityTokenKeyFile
>
>
>
>+1
>-Ryan
>
>Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com
>Phone: 978-899-3041
>developerWorks Profile
>
>
>
>From: Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
>To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
>Date: 11/22/2011 03:17 PM
>Subject: Re: SecurityTokenKeyFile
>
>
>
>I could live with updating the UPGRADING file. +1
>
>- Henry
>
>On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Ciancetta, Jesse E. <jc...@mitre.org>
>wrote:
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Stanton Sievers [mailto:ssiev...@us.ibm.com]
>>>Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:56 PM
>>>To: dev@shindig.apache.org
>>>Subject: Re: SecurityTokenKeyFile
>>>
>>>I thought the code was backwards compatible. Jesse, did your recent
>>>change remove the securityTokenKeyFile or did I do that by accident when
>
>I
>>>made my changes and introduced securityTokenKey?
>>
>> It was my change that removed the securityTokenKeyFile property entirely
>
>in favor of the one more flexible securityTokenKey property.
>>
>> Since we'd said previously that 2.x to 3.x could introduce breaking
>changes, and since we haven't actually done a full 3.x release yet I
>thought it would be alright to go ahead and cleanup the config and remove
>the old property.
>>
>> Would an entry in the UPGRADING file for this property name change
>suffice? I'd really rather keep the configuration clean if we can...
>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>-Stanton
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>From: Henry Saputra <henry.sapu...@gmail.com>
>>>To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
>>>Date: 11/22/2011 14:51
>>>Subject: Re: SecurityTokenKeyFile
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Thanks Jesse,
>>>
>>>Hmm maybe we should add code for old config compatibility for 3.0?
>>>Need to also check for "securityTokenKeyFile" config.
>>>
>>>Stanton, Ryan?
>>>
>>>- Henry
>>>
>>>On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:42 AM, daviesd <davi...@oclc.org> wrote:
>>>> Ah, I didn't catch that. Sorry. Yes, changing to just securityTokenKey
>>>> works. Thanks a lot!
>>>>
>>>> doug
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/22/11 2:36 PM, "Ciancetta, Jesse E." <jc...@mitre.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Ciancetta, Jesse E.
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:24 PM
>>>>>> To: shindig
>>>>>> Subject: RE: SecurityTokenKeyFile
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: daviesd [mailto:davi...@oclc.org]
>>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2011 2:14 PM
>>>>>>> To: shindig
>>>>>>> Subject: SecurityTokenKeyFile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know there was a change recently (SHINDIG-1636) that changed the
>>>way
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> token encryption key was loaded. I use to have
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "gadgets.securityTokenKeyFile" : "res://tokenkey.txt"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmm -- I believe this should have worked and I tested this case when
>
>I
>>>was
>>>>>> testing the recent changes you referred to locally. I'll give it
>>>another try
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> few minutes and report back what I find...
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually -- sorry -- that wouldn't have worked. The property name
>>>changed to
>>>>> just gadgets.securityTokenKey as you mentioned below but now that
>one
>>>property
>>>>> can be configured using either the key directly, a resource reference
>>>or a
>>>>> file-system reference. The default container.js should have samples
>of
>>>the
>>>>> three different ways it can be used now -- so for loading from the
>>>classpath
>>>>> it should be:
>>>>>
>>>>> "gadgets.securityTokenKey" : "res:// tokenkey.txt ",
>>>>>
>>>>> That actually applies to any property in container.js now -- not just
>>>the
>>>>> security token key (the ability to pull the value from a classpath
>>>resource or
>>>>> file-system reference that is).
>>>>>
>>>>> Please let me know if this resolves the issue for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But this appears to be broken now. tokenkey.txt would be in the
>root
>>>of my
>>>>>>> classes directory. I was able to get this to work by providing the
>>>key
>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "gadgets.securityTokenKey" : "xxxxxxxxxx="
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is the correct way to refer to the file now?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Doug
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
