----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/#review3976 -----------------------------------------------------------
So far I have 1 vote for splitting the update function into 2 parts (from Jesse), and 1 for leaving it as 1 function (from Henry, I think on the dev list). Are there any other opinions on the matter? - Dan 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, Henry Saputra, Ryan Baxter, li xu, Jesse > Ciancetta, 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 > >
