> "In my opinion (although I'm not sure that everyone on the Shindig list > > agrees with me), there should not be a requirement that your container and > > the Shindig server are in the same language, or share code, share > > datasources, share anything but a handful of shared secrets. The only thing > > that you need in your own programming language is the GadgetSigner (soon to > > be renamed GadgetTokenSigner) and appropriate subclasses. This is not more > > than a couple of lines of code in most cases. (I think they can even be > > compiled to standalone Java programs, which are then run from the > > commandline, so they can be called from any environment)."
This is a noble goal, but is it realistic? There's a lot of per-user data the container will have that the gadget needs to peek at: owner ids, viewer ids, friends lists, OAuth access tokens. If we do want to export this information to gadgets the security token is going to get quite large. Or do you imagine a flow where the gadget calls back to the parent page to fetch what it needs, then forwards that info to the gadget server? Cheers, Brian
