So let me ask a followup question.

I WAS running the shindig-server component and the container javascript all
on the same host under a /shindig web context.  I had all that working just
fine.

Now I'm trying to split out the server and client side pieces so that, as
suggested, I don't have the security risk of shindig running on the same
server as my webapp.

So I took my existing project and deployed it to another host/domain.  Then
I took the commoncontainer javascript and included it in a new webapp on my
localhost and pointed the configuration to my new host.

in assembler.js:

testConfig[shindig.container.ServiceConfig.API_PATH] =
'http://newhost:8080/shindig/rpc';

In index.html:

<script type="text/javascript"
src="http://newhost:8080/shindig/gadgets/js/container:rpc:pubsub-2.js?c=1&de
bug=1&container=default""></script>

Now I hit

http://localhost:8080/shindig-client/commoncontainer/

And I get an error

http://localhost:8080/shindig/rpc?st=-1%3A-1%3A*%3A%3A*%3A0%3Adefault&%5B%7B
%22method%22%3A%22gadgets.metadata%22%2C%22id%22%3A%22gadgets.metadata%22%2C
%22params%22%3A%7B%22container%22%3A%22default%22%2C%22ids%22%3A%5B%22http%3
A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Fig%2Fmodules%2Fhoroscope.xml%22%2C%22http%3A%2F%2Fww
w.labpixies.com%2Fcampaigns%2Ftodo%2Ftodo.xml%22%5D%2C%22fields%22%3A%5B%22i
frameUrl%22%2C%22modulePrefs.*%22%2C%22needsTokenRefresh%22%2C%22userPrefs.*
%22%2C%22views.preferredHeight%22%2C%22views.preferredWidth%22%2C%22expireTi
meMs%22%2C%22responseTimeMs%22%5D%2C%22userId%22%3A%22%40viewer%22%2C%22grou
pId%22%3A%22%40self%22%7D%7D%5D=

404 not found, because it's going to localhost instead of newhost.

What am I doing wrong here?  Am I understanding this correctly?  That all
the shindig server stuff can be on 1 host and my commoncontainer can be on
another?

Thanks,
doug


On 3/28/11 10:39 AM, "Kris Vishwanathan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This is right on time. We had similar issues with context root and host
> port settings. We have developed a patch based on trunk and will be posting
> for code review in a day or two.
> 
> 


Reply via email to