Ahh I see. If you never use the autogen, I think you can use a number in the id of the site. Just don't every use the autogen by not specifying an id :) I did it this way because it was less invasive than changing the api.
Passing in an id to the constructor might be ok too, but it is an api change. If you feel strongly about it or can't easily work with the current behavior, write up a patch :) From: daviesd <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]>, Date: 11/17/2011 11:34 AM Subject: Re: siteId from element id Rereading I may not have been totally clear. We are NOT using the auto-generated number. We are using a sequence number from our database (which correlates to our gadget space). It is always the same number for an installed gadget. I guess my question was... Is using an html element attribute the correct way to communicate this id or would changing the api for newGadgetSite to accept an id be more appropriate? doug On 11/17/11 11:15 AM, "Dan Dumont" <[email protected]> wrote: > The siteId is also passed along in the set_pref and get_pref convenience > functions so that containers can choose to have preferences that are saved > per-gadget-instance. I thought that if a container page were to persist > gadgets on a page in particular places, those site ids might need to have > a greater significance than just an autogenerated number.
