> On 2012-04-23 18:48:33, Henry Saputra wrote:
> > How would the isInternalRequest() method is being used with the new flow? I 
> > only saw that its used in the test file?
> 
> BrianLillie wrote:
>     We are using the security token and the additional isInternalRequest in 
> our fetcher implementation to make further determinations on the suitability 
> of requests.   Other than tagging the request, there is no current usage of 
> the internalRequest within the flows.

What is the difference between setting AnonymousSecurityToken and call 
setInternalRequest() to the HttpRequest? Looks like both indicating the request 
could come from internal Shindig code.


- Henry


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
https://reviews.apache.org/r/4750/#review7150
-----------------------------------------------------------


On 2012-04-23 18:22:22, BrianLillie wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> https://reviews.apache.org/r/4750/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated 2012-04-23 18:22:22)
> 
> 
> Review request for shindig.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Update HttpRequest objects to identify a request source.  For some requests, 
> SecurityTokens are provided.   Others have gadget URI, but this is not always 
> trustworthy as it is set based upon URL parameters.
> For requests where a security token was not sent from the client, create and 
> set an AnonymousSecurityToken identifying the gadget URI associated with the 
> request.   Also, add a flag to the HttpRequest to indicate a request 
> generated by the server, where this may be set when requesting services, 
> retrieving a template library, or during selected rewrites.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug SHINDIG-1756.
>     https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SHINDIG-1756
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/AbstractSpecFactory.java
>  1326861 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/features/FeatureResourceLoader.java
>  1304584 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/http/HttpRequest.java
>  1304584 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/oauth/OAuthRequest.java
>  1304584 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/oauth2/handler/ClientCredentialsGrantTypeHandler.java
>  1326858 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/oauth2/handler/CodeAuthorizationResponseHandler.java
>  1326858 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/render/CajaResponseRewriter.java
>  1304584 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/render/DefaultServiceFetcher.java
>  1304584 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/servlet/CajaContentRewriter.java
>  1311453 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/servlet/HttpRequestHandler.java
>  1304584 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/main/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/templates/TemplateLibraryFactory.java
>  1304584 
>   
> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/shindig/trunk/java/gadgets/src/test/java/org/apache/shindig/gadgets/http/HttpRequestTest.java
>  1304584 
> 
> Diff: https://reviews.apache.org/r/4750/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> Existing tests passed.  No tests that I saw specifically examined the request 
> content & state.  Should there be consensus on the patch, then I will look at 
> providing additional tests to do some request state verification.
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> BrianLillie
> 
>

Reply via email to