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 davi...@oclc.org
To: dev@shindig.apache.org,
Cc: shindig
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
Ah nice =)
One less patch to review, thanks Jesse and Dan
- Henry
On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Ciancetta, Jesse E. jc...@mitre.org 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
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/#review4074
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/#review4075
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/#review4085
---
On 2011-12-20 22:27:52, Henry Saputra wrote:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/content/samplecontainer/examples/commoncontainer/assembler.js,
line 28
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/diff/4/?file=64700#file64700line28
Do you need to take out this line for the common
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/#review4021
---
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/#review3981
---
Jesse, I think I miss the part where the siteIdExtractor is being
On 2011-12-19 20:23:10, Henry Saputra wrote:
Jesse, I think I miss the part where the siteIdExtractor is being set? Is
it need to be done by common container client?
Yes -- it can be set by the client as a property of the configuration object
passed to the common container constructor.
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/
---
(Updated 2011-12-14 21:13:40.309607)
Review request for shindig.
Changes
Hi Jesse,
Sorry I havent gotten chance to review the patch but I agree sending 0
for moduleId in common container seems like a bug.
We havent moved to common container so I am honestly havent spend a
lot of time tracing the impl.
Maybe Mike and/ or John could help review the patch too.
Thanks
-Original Message-
From: Ryan J Baxter [mailto:rjbax...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 9:13 AM
To: dev@shindig.apache.org
Subject: RE: Review Request: Common container currently doesnt include the
siteId (moduleId) in any of it's security token processing/handling
Jesse, to
Stanton has given this an initial nod code-wise, but it seems we're still
struggling for consensus on the need to/use cases for making this change in the
first place -- so before I continue working on this it would be very nice if at
least one other person could confirm that we should indeed be
Jesse, to answer your question, I am not sure it is so much a bug as
opposed to it being one of those things that just needs to be implemented
by the container. In either case if we can provide a production level
implementation for it in Shindig I am all for it.
Stanton and I had a short
-Original Message-
From: Ryan J Baxter [mailto:rjbax...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 4:01 PM
To: dev@shindig.apache.org
Cc: Stanton Sievers
Subject: RE: Review Request: Common container currently doesnt include the
siteId (moduleId) in any of it's security token
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/#review2310
---
Overall this looks good. It does lead me to wonder what your use
On 2011-10-04 16:28:14, Stanton Sievers wrote:
Overall this looks good. It does lead me to wonder what your use cases are
for the module ID. In the Shindig Java code I only ever see
org.apache.shindig.auth.SecurityToken.getModuleId() used in
-Original Message-
From: Ryan J Baxter [mailto:rjbax...@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 1:54 PM
To: Ciancetta, Jesse E.
Cc: dev@shindig.apache.org; Stanton Sievers
Subject: RE: Review Request: Common container currently doesnt include the
siteId (moduleId) in any of it's
Couldn't I reuse a site though? So if I have one gadget rendered in a
site and then I close it and reuse that site to render a new gadget
wouldn't both gadgets then have the same module id? Or maybe that doesn't
matter since you closed the original gadget
-Ryan
Email:
Sounds good -- thanks Ryan.
Just to clarify though -- I'm not necessarily suggesting that these changes
actually get applied as is -- I'm really more looking to start a discussion
around this as one possible solution to the problem. This is the simplest set
of changes I could come up with to
Jesse, I know Stanton has been looking at some of this code lately and
might be a good person to take a look at your suggested changes. He is
out on vaca until next Tuesday but I can see if he can take a look when he
gets back.
-Ryan
Email: rjbax...@us.ibm.com
Phone: 978-899-3041
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/
---
(Updated 2011-08-31 14:48:03.017899)
Review request for shindig.
Changes
---
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/1632/
---
(Updated 2011-08-26 15:34:00.521113)
Review request for shindig.
Changes
Just to try to start some kind of dialog around this...
Do people think it's important to have correct moduleId's in security tokens?
And just to be clear -- I mean that as a real question -- I'm not trying to be
flip... If people using common container are only using security tokens for
25 matches
Mail list logo
