On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Eric Tschetter <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Kevin Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Carmen Sarlo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> We want to serve shindig using something other then the root context > (/). > >> Say something like (/shindig). I see the examples are hard coded. I can > >> live with that, but what about the rest of the code? What is needed to > get > >> this working to serve other then root context? We will be using the java > >> implementation of shindig. > > > > > > It should work just fine on any context, but there are quite a few urls > you > > have to update. There's an open issue to migrate all of this to one > place, > > but nobody's ever gotten around to it. > > > > Make sure you update all the paths in the container config > > (trunk/config/container.js) as well as the language-specific > configuration > > file (for java, it's trunk/java/common/config/shindig.properties). > > > > Once you've got that, you should be able to set web.xml appropriately. > > > Why isn't fixing this a part of the "release" version of Shindig? I > would assume that ease of integration would be a high priority in > something that is supposed to be released for external consumption. Because running Shindig on the same host name as any other application is strongly discouraged for security purposes, and you have to modify all of these values to deploy the server in production anyway. Migrating the base path to a common location is just for convenience, and it's pretty minor in the grand scheme of things. > Also, should people looking to integrate against Shindig be > integrating against trunk? I'm assuming the paths in your message > should be pointing to the release branch. I know I wouldn't be very > happy if I were to start integrating against Shindig because I heard > it was going to release a stable version only to find out that the > version I integrated against is the unstable dev branch. Use the stable version unless you're looking to pull in 0.9 prototype stuff. > Not trying to troll, it just struck me as odd that there was no > mentioning of fixing this integration issue in any of the release > threads. There's nothing to fix, it would just be slightly easier to integrate if the configuration was all in one place. > > --Eric Tschetter >
