> On June 19, 2012, 5:49 p.m., Dan Dumont wrote:
> > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/render/DefaultServiceFetcher.java,
> >  line 169
> > <https://reviews.apache.org/r/5422/diff/1/?file=112238#file112238line169>
> >
> >     Actually... if codec is optional, you might want to check that you have 
> > one here before you use it.

There is a check for codec != null at line 156.


- Brian


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/5422/#review8400
-----------------------------------------------------------


On June 20, 2012, 12:32 p.m., Brian Lillie wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/5422/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated June 20, 2012, 12:32 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for shindig, Ryan Baxter and Doug Davies.
> 
> 
> Description
> -------
> 
> Continuing review started @ http://codereview.appspot.com/6306074/
> 
> Have modified retrieveServices to accept container as parameter, and use to 
> generate security token
> 
> 
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1799.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1799
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/common/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/auth/BlobCrypterSecurityTokenCodec.java
>  1350364 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/render/DefaultServiceFetcher.java
>  1350372 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/test/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/render/DefaultServiceFetcherTest.java
>  1347033 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/5422/diff/
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Tests pass.  EndToEndTest passes with allowUnauthenticated=false, and with 
> secure tokens enabled
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Brian Lillie
> 
>

Reply via email to