Henry, I was actually thinking of having it be it's own file, with it's 
own guice module.  I think this provides the most flexibility to the 
implementer.  I know for our use case it would be simpler for us to just 
replace a guice module as this administration information is stored 
separately from the configuration information in our application.

-Ryan

Email: [email protected]
Phone: 978-899-3041
developerWorks Profile



From:   Henry Saputra <[email protected]>
To:     [email protected], 
Date:   09/01/2011 03:16 PM
Subject:        Re: Replacing The Gadget Blacklist Functionality



I was actually thinking about moving it to container.js file.

Probably we could also include the new admin setup into container file 
itself?

- Henry

On Thu, Sep 1, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Ryan J Baxter <[email protected]> wrote:
> As I look into how to add more functionality around gadget 
administration
> into Shindig (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1601) I came
> across the gadget blacklist which can be enabled/specified in
> shindig.properties.  I am wondering what people think about combining 
that
> list into a more general gadget administration store.  For the work I am
> doing around administrating the features and RPC services a gadget is
> allowed to use I have created a sample store in shindig, which is really
> just a JSON file.  (You can replace this file via a guice module.)  Here
> is an example...
>
> {
>  "default" : {
>    "http://www.google.com/ig/modules/horoscope.xml"; : ["views", "tabs",
> "setprefs", "dynamic-height", "settitle"],
>    "http://www.labpixies.com/campaigns/todo/todo.xml"; : ["setprefs",
> "dynamic-height", "views"]
>  },
>  "foo" : {
>    "http://example.com/gadget.xml"; : ["tabs"]
>  }
> }
>
> In essence this JSON file specifies which features each gadget is 
allowed
> to use in a given container.  If a gadget requests a feature not in the
> array for that container the metadata request will fail for that gadget.
> You could also easily provide the same functionality the blacklist
> provides based off the information in this store, the store pretty much
> acts like a whitelist where the administrator needs to specifically 
allow
> gadget to render in a given container and provide the features that 
gadget
> is allowed to use.  Obviously this is the inverse of what the blacklist
> did, but I don't think it makes sense to have to maintain two lists.
> Thoughts?
>
> -Ryan
>
> Email: [email protected]
> Phone: 978-899-3041
> developerWorks Profile
>
>



Reply via email to