The primary reason we are thinking about utilizing caja is for performance. The caja site says that if no iframe is used, this can improve performance. I read an email to this list somewhere that suggested enabling caja /w Shindig actually slows things down. Since inlining isn't supported, I'd imagine this is definitely true, no?
Thanks, Robert 2010/3/1 ๏̯͡๏ Jasvir Nagra <[email protected]> > On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 6:25 PM, Robert Peterson <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > How can we do the equivalent of sample1.html with caja? Here is what we > > tried: > > > > *test-spec.xml:* > > <Module> > > <ModulePrefs title="Hello World"> > > <Require feature="caja"/> > > </ModulePrefs> > > <Content type="html"> > > <![CDATA[ <p>caja are you there?</p> ]]> > > </Content> > > </Module> > > > > *renderGadget():* > > var gadget0 = gadgets.container.createGadget({specUrl: " > > http://ourserver.com/test-spec.xml"}); > > gadgets.container.addGadget(gadget0); > > gadgets.container.layoutManager.setGadgetChromeIds(['gadget-chrome-x']); > > gadgets.container.renderGadget(gadget0); > > > > This did render the gadget, but it is still in an iframe and firebug > shows > > > > Shindig does not support inlined rendering with Caja. > > > > these errors: > > > > Internal: Simple functions can't be exophora: function (v) { valijaMaker > = > > v; } > > Error(message);}function > > enforce(test,...},Array.slice(arguments,1));}function > > opensocial is not defined > > $v is undefined > > > > Your gadget looks fine (and loads fine in samplecontainer). These errors > look like they are from a misconfigured container - I am not familiar with > sample1.html but I'd started by ensuring it overrides > gadgets.Gadget.prototype.getAdditionalParams to pass "&caja=1&libs=caja" to > the gadget rewriter. See samplecontainer/samplecontainer.js for an > example. > > > > > > Help! > > >
