----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/#review3911 -----------------------------------------------------------
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container/container.js <https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/#comment8800> Shouldnt this call happen? The default shindig.auth contributor is using anonymous security token http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container/container.js <https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/#comment8787> The declaration of updateContainerSecurityToken doesnt have to be inside the anon "(function() {" right? http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container/container.js <https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/#comment8792> Shouldnt this 95/100? - Henry On 2011-12-14 16:35:00, Dan Dumont wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2011-12-14 16:35:00) > > > Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter, li xu, Jesse Ciancetta, Henry > Saputra, and Stanton Sievers. > > > Summary > ------- > > Initial review of 1st change. Allowing common container to manage container > token refreshes. Also, refresh of gadget security tokens will now wait for > valid container security token before trying to refresh. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container/container.js > 1213887 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > Tested code in a private container with some examples of setting no refresh > (ttl = 0) and setting an initial token (if it was written by jsp page to > avoid transaction) etc.. > > > Thanks, > > Dan > >