Re: Review Request: CommonContainer token refresh changes for a better UX when tokens expire.

2011-12-23 Thread Dan Dumont
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/ --- (Updated 2011-12-23 21:20:36.791685) Review request for shindig, Henry Saputra,

Re: Review Request: CommonContainer token refresh changes for a better UX when tokens expire.

2011-12-23 Thread Jesse Ciancetta
> On 2011-12-23 14:36:01, Jesse Ciancetta wrote: > > I'm trying to respond to the questions Dan posted with his last update but > > I dont see a way to comment there -- so I guess I'll just put my comments > > here... Going to copy/paste Dan's questions and respond to them inline > > below. >

Re: Review Request: Common container currently doesnt include the siteId (moduleId) in any of it's security token processing/handling

2011-12-23 Thread Henry Saputra
Ah nice =) One less patch to review, thanks Jesse and Dan - Henry On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Ciancetta, Jesse E. wrote: > Hi Henry, > > Thanks for taking a look. > > It looks like Dan has started to pull the moduleId changes into the security > token related patch he's already been worki

RE: Review Request: Common container currently doesnt include the siteId (moduleId) in any of it's security token processing/handling

2011-12-23 Thread Ciancetta, Jesse E.
Hi Henry, Thanks for taking a look. It looks like Dan has started to pull the moduleId changes into the security token related patch he's already been working on -- and after chatting with him a bit this morning we've agreed that it makes sense to continue down that path. --Jesse >-Origin

Re: Review Request: Common container currently doesnt include the siteId (moduleId) in any of it's security token processing/handling

2011-12-23 Thread Dan Dumont
I think we would certainly want to make sure that all container-proxied requests ferry along the moduleId. I'll keep that in mind as I make these changes. Thank you for pointing it out. From: "Davies,Douglas" To: , Cc: "shindig" , Dan Dumont/Westford/IBM@Lotus, "Jesse Ciancetta"

Re: Review Request: Common container currently doesnt include the siteId (moduleId) in any of it's security token processing/handling

2011-12-23 Thread Davies,Douglas
Not to throw a monkey wrench into things, but maybe this will help set direction too. I reported bug a few months back https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1557 I discovered that the security token used for rpc request (appdata, userPrefs) is the container security token, not the gadge

Re: Review Request: CommonContainer token refresh changes for a better UX when tokens expire.

2011-12-23 Thread Jesse Ciancetta
--- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/3180/#review4105 --- I'm trying to respond to the questions Dan posted with his last update

RE: [jira] [Commented] (SHINDIG-1549) gadgets.metadata request fails for gadgets that don't have a "default" view

2011-12-23 Thread Ciancetta, Jesse E.
Hmm... Looks like I don’t have the proper role in Shindig JIRA to be able to resolve tickets I didn’t submit. Could someone with administrative privileges over the Shindig JIRA project please grant me the needed privileges? Thanks! --Jesse >-Original Message- >From: Jesse Ciancetta (

Re: Review Request: Common container currently doesnt include the siteId (moduleId) in any of it's security token processing/handling

2011-12-23 Thread Jesse Ciancetta
> On 2011-12-22 20:34:52, Dan Dumont wrote: > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container.gadget/gadget_site.js, > > line 419 > > > > > > Do you know why this is done i

Re: Guice problem in persistence

2011-12-23 Thread Evgeny Bogdanov
Thank you Stanton for the hint. I went with the static field approach, since I do not explicitly initialize UserDb class. Best Evgeny On 22.12.11 14:49, Stanton Sievers wrote: Here are two options I can come up with off the top of my head, assuming I understand your problem correctly. You can