I would vote for a gadget feature backed-up with appdata.
The main reason is the use of a gadget outside a container.
For example, a secret url is given to the user:
http://localhost:8080/gadgets/ifr?url=http://iamac71.epfl.ch/iframe.xml&st=secure_token
Then the user can open this url with a br
> On 2012-02-22 03:03:25, li xu wrote:
> > LGTM. Thanks!
Sorry,missed previous comments. Second thought after reading it and checking a
few web links, I agree more thoughts on "403" will be needed. The reason about
"403" may not be token related...it's common to return "403" with a reason lik
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3987/#review5259
---
Ship it!
LGTM. Thanks!
- li
On 2012-02-21 21:40:31, Stanton Siever
On 2/21/12 8:30 PM, "Ryan J Baxter" wrote:
>Actually the view name to use for displaying preferences in a gadget was
>defined in the spec in 2.0. See
>http://opensocial-resources.googlecode.com/svn/spec/2.0.1/Core-Gadget.xml#
>gadgets.views.ViewType
Thanks Ryan. Even better than a discussion :
Actually the view name to use for displaying preferences in a gadget was
defined in the spec in 2.0. See
http://opensocial-resources.googlecode.com/svn/spec/2.0.1/Core-Gadget.xml#gadgets.views.ViewType
.
One other thing to think about with a container side implementation would
be the savings
> On 2012-02-22 00:39:19, Ryan Baxter wrote:
> > LGTM. This seems reasonable. I took a quick peak at the OAuth 2 spec and
> > it didnt seem to go into any details on this. You might want to post
> > something on the OAuth mailing list to see if anyone there has any thoughts.
The only detail
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3987/#review5255
---
Ship it!
LGTM. This seems reasonable. I took a quick peak at the OA
>-Original Message-
>From: daviesd [mailto:davi...@oclc.org]
>Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 4:44 PM
>To: shindig
>Subject: User Prefs Panel Brainstorm
>
>I¹ve started to implement a User Prefs panel. I¹m thinking of implementing
>it as a feature. My problem is I¹m flip flopping between
Ah ok, thanks Stanton
- Henry
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:57 PM, Stanton Sievers wrote:
> Hi Henry,
>
> Token expiration is now checked in the createToken() methods in both
> BasicSecurityTokenCodec and BlobCrypterSecurityTokenCodec. They use
> AbstractSecurityToken.enforceNotExpired() to do thi
Hi Doug,
First, I don't know of anyone actively working on this.
Second, I think the container feature approach would be best for a couple
reasons. It doesn't mandate that the gadgets do anything, as you
mentioned. It also helps to keep the look and feel the same across the
entire page if th
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3959/#review5253
---
Ship it!
Committed revision 1292048
- Stanton
On 2012-02-20 14:14:
I¹ve started to implement a User Prefs panel. I¹m thinking of implementing
it as a feature. My problem is I¹m flip flopping between it being a
container feature v.s. a gadget feature. There are benefits and drawbacks
to both. I kind of like having it as a gadget feature. It could provide a
def
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3987/
---
Review request for shindig, li xu and Adam Clarke.
Summary
---
>From JIRA:
Hi Henry,
Token expiration is now checked in the createToken() methods in both
BasicSecurityTokenCodec and BlobCrypterSecurityTokenCodec. They use
AbstractSecurityToken.enforceNotExpired() to do this.
-Stanton
From: Henry Saputra
To: Dan Dumont/Westford/IBM@Lotus, dev@shindig.apache.
Dan,
Previously the blob crypter check for blob ST timeout but since the
patch for SHINDIG-1645 seems to be taken out.
Where does the logic go?
- Henry
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/3959/#review5240
---
Ship it!
LGTM should help alot.
- Ryan
On 2012-02-20 14:14:35, Sta
16 matches
Mail list logo
