> On 2011-12-19 18:23:54, Dan Dumont wrote: > > 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?
I agree with Jesse on this one. Splitting this up may help make this more understandable. I see your point about not having to set the token but this can be made clear in the specification for the common container. It took me a little bit to figure out what was happening, and I am still not sure I completely understand it all... - Ryan ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/#review3976 ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 > >