> On 2012-04-12 11:48:31, Stanton Sievers wrote: > > As far as the actual code goes this looks ok. I'm trying to understand the > > use case for needing this. Looking at the rpc code it seems like the > > rpctoken is optional in most cases but that configuration is not > > "production ready". And in other places I get the impression that it is > > only for ifpc. > > > > Is the "production ready" part the motivation for this patch, or was the > > flash transport simply broken?
No, it doesnt work right now with flash transport for common container since the flash component needs this for registering uniques function listener for each iframe so this fix is required especially to support (shudder) IE7 - Henry ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4703/#review6871 ----------------------------------------------------------- On 2012-04-11 23:51:23, Henry Saputra wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.apache.org/r/4703/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated 2012-04-11 23:51:23) > > > Review request for shindig. > > > Summary > ------- > > Add rpctoken in the url fragment to support flash transport in the > gadget_holder when generating iframe url. > > Add small fix to uri.js to simply return empty array if > shindig.uri.parseParams() is called with empty string. > > > Diffs > ----- > > > trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/container.site.gadget/gadget_holder.js > 1325046 > trunk/features/src/main/javascript/features/shindig.uri/uri.js 1325046 > trunk/features/src/test/javascript/features/container/gadget_holder_test.js > 1325046 > > Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4703/diff > > > Testing > ------- > > Update JS unit test. > > > Thanks, > > Henry > >
