That's what I was kind of figuring. So can you tell me what state the moduleId stuff is at? Is it still under development or can I start using it now? I hope we get another beta (or final 3.0.0 release) soon that has this and oauth2 in a stable state.
doug On 1/23/12 3:16 PM, "Dan Dumont" <ddum...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hrmm... > > I don't know if you'll be able to do this anymore until you hook up the > moduleId support. > > > > From: daviesd <davi...@oclc.org> > To: <dev@shindig.apache.org>, > Date: 01/23/2012 03:08 PM > Subject: Re: getModuleId > > > > Like I said... An edge case... And probably not a real world use case. > > But my test gadget sets a bunch of userprefs and then it needs to repull > the > values (from persistence) and make sure they've been set properly (tests a > race condition we had). > > I was using osapi.userprefs.get to retrieve the values. Is there a gadget > way of triggering the get call that is in the container? I don't want to > just get the map that the container has, I need to reforce a read from > persistence. > > Hope that makes sense, > doug > > > On 1/23/12 3:00 PM, "Dan Dumont" <ddum...@us.ibm.com> wrote: > >> I don't think so. In my opinion, the siteId is a purely container > piece >> of information. >> why do you need to get it inside the gadget? >> >> >> >> From: daviesd <davi...@oclc.org> >> To: <dev@shindig.apache.org>, >> Date: 01/23/2012 02:57 PM >> Subject: Re: getModuleId >> >> >> >> I agree on everything you just stated. >> >> So my only outstanding question would be is anyone aware of a way for a >> gadget to find out it's siteId (the id that was set on the element the >> gadget was rendered into)? >> >> Any yes, I'd like to see the rpc requests changed to use the gadget >> security >> token. >> >> doug >> >> >> On 1/23/12 1:44 PM, "Dan Dumont" <ddum...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >> >>> Not a problem. >>> >>> mid is for the moduleId. (maybe it wasn't always so... but for >>> consistency sake it probably should remain so) >>> IIRC, Prefs.getModuleId returns the value in the ifr url 'mid' param. >>> >>> Your GET_PREFERENCES/SET_PREFERENCES impl should be getting the siteid, >>> which it can look up a gadget site with. >>> You can then determine the moduleId (which should be 0 for now). >>> >>> I agree, if the rpc requests do not pass the gadget's token along, they >>> probably should now. Most people will be wanting to key things off of >> the >>> moduleId rather than the siteId. The moduleId is baked in the token > and >>> not something one could spoof with firebug. >>> >>> >>> From: daviesd <davi...@oclc.org> >>> To: <dev@shindig.apache.org>, >>> Date: 01/23/2012 01:34 PM >>> Subject: Re: getModuleId >>> >>> >>> >>> In pref.js shindig was setting the Prefs moduleId to the "mid" >> parameter. >>> Perhaps something is different here now. So for whatever reason that >> use >>> to >>> return me whatever I had as my siteId and now it doesn't. >>> >>> At any rate, this is a TEST gadget that is probably trying to access >>> something it shouldn't. When the userprefs are stored they are stored >>> using >>> the siteId granted by our container implementation (the container >>> registers >>> SET_PREFERENCES and GET_PREFERENCES handlers). I think I opened up > this >>> ticket because of that. >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1557 >>> >>> It would really be nice if the rpc requests used the gadget security >> token >>> (that would hopefully have the moduleId set now that you've implemented >>> that). >>> >>> So in my test gadget I don't know what the siteId is. For some reason > I >>> was >>> calling Prefs().getModuleId (I think this thread suggests that). >>> >>> http://shindig-dev.markmail.org/thread/zyi2zvpn7akhrbi3 >>> >>> Is there another way for a gadget to know this? I realize implementing >>> moduleId would probably give me this (although a gadget doesn't really >>> know >>> what's in it's security token, but it can certainly pass it along to > api >>> calls). >>> >>> Sorry if I'm muddying the waters. I should have been more active in >> your >>> moduleId discussion. >>> >>> doug >>> >>> >>> On 1/23/12 12:57 PM, "Dan Dumont" <ddum...@us.ibm.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hrmm... I don't recall moduleId ever being anything other than 0. >>>> >>>> The discussions have focused around what a moduleId is (a number > that's >>>> baked into the security token, primarily used to identify saved >>> instances >>>> of a gadget) and what a siteId is ( a string value that's used in or > as >>> an >>>> id attribute of a DOM element in the container ). The recent patches >>>> created a way to generate, save, and track moduleIds on the server, >>> should >>>> you choose to implement the bits, otherwise they return 0 as they >> always >>>> have. >>>> >>>> I'm curious how you got numbers other than 0. Especially for the >>> security >>>> token, moduleId was always 0 in shindig. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: daviesd <davi...@oclc.org> >>>> To: shindig <dev@shindig.apache.org>, >>>> Date: 01/23/2012 12:51 PM >>>> Subject: getModuleId >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have a gadget that was using >>>> >>>> var moduleId = new gadgets.Prefs().getModuleId(); >>>> >>>> To get the current moduleId (siteId) of the gadget so that it could >>>> retrieve >>>> userprefs >>>> >>>> osapi.userprefs.get( { siteId : moduleId } ) >>>> >>>> This is now return 0 instead of the id I have for the element the >> gadget >>>> was >>>> rendered into. >>>> >>>> I haven¹t kept up with the whole moduleId/siteId patch that is going >> on, >>>> but >>>> perhaps something has changed here and is not backwards compatible? >>>> >>>> Any ideas? It¹s been a while since I¹ve played around with userprefs >>> and >>>> today was the first I noticed it wasn¹t working. >>>> >>>> doug >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > >
