rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Heshan Suriyaarachchi <heshan.suriyaarach...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Rave+HTTPS only on Port 443?
Date Tue, 11 Sep 2012 22:19:21 GMT
Hi Jasha,

I updated the urls of the container.js as it is instructed in the tutorial
(ie. Changed http urls to https) but I did not do any port additions in
that file.

I have following configurations in my portal.properties and
rave.shindig.properties files.

rave-portal-resources/src/main/resources/portal.properties

portal.opensocial_engine.protocol=https
portal.opensocial_engine.root=XXX.XXX.indiana.edu
portal.opensocial_engine.gadget_path=/gadgets

rave-providers/rave-opensocial-provider/rave-opensocial-server/rave-shindig/src/main/resources/rave.shindig.properties

shindig.host=XXX.XXX.indiana.edu
shindig.port=

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 4:47 AM, Jasha Joachimsthal <jasha@apache.org>wrote:

> It looks like the portal tries to contact Shindig on the default port. Did
> you change all the entries in the container.js as well to use port 8443?
>
> On 11 September 2012 00:07, Heshan Suriyaarachchi <
> heshan.suriyaarachchi@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Following is the stacktrace.
> >
> > http://pastebin.com/dnhFhb3T
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Heshan
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Marlon Pierce <marpierc@iu.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > We could get to the login page OK if using 8443, but then suffered
> > > meltdown when logging in. We'll dig up the stacktrace.
> > >
> > >
> > > Marlon
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/10/12 3:35 PM, Jasha Joachimsthal wrote:
> > > > Couldn't you access the portal at all or were you able to log in,
> > > > but none of the widgets rendered?
> > > >
> > > > Jasha
> > > >
> > > > On 10 September 2012 20:10, Marlon Pierce <marpierc@iu.edu> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Hi all--
> > > >
> > > > We were reviewing the Rave+SSL instructions
> > > > (http://rave.apache.org/documentation/configure-ssl.html) and
> > > > noticed it requires using port 443.  The instructions worked as
> > > > written (and didn't if we used 8443).
> > > >
> > > > Does anyone know the source of this constraint?  It would be much
> > > > better for development purposes to not require restricted ports.
> > > > Also, has anyone looked at using Apache HTTPD + SSL + proxying as
> > > > an alternative?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks--
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Marlon
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > > Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.16 (Darwin)
> > > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://www.enigmail.net/
> > >
> > > iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQTkLkAAoJEOEgD2XReDo5NSYH/2+wCIssx9X9Pp19tJTXJTZF
> > > /+pxK3iIlhF+/7nZ5mWmt3evtwhzR88ETYiZXciwYxmkhqZqcInM6ZrOuAaEYrh1
> > > ThFNOVIJkHvg5XLBTp0tN7d0OWSGNfRaQpzhCXJse0CbLTOCo4KqMd301E3goCqE
> > > SQ3ryhPwHlbLslMDu+PF+dnzJvdF+/BlKbTm/RG/55ECA/ioVN5DkAv9Qd/k3Kzk
> > > c3GXwGJgBioBldXWdG1+lj9HAzgtsIDTIt0GkqR1GR7Y/TPp3n67VSQ2D1qd9Nfm
> > > 3Sa6FPRx0rSdmafp69mXZItPuWty2kb9/YN46GZysYMC0/keHw4yzYQFLv5Qow0=
> > > =cWwn
> > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Heshan Suriyaarachchi
> >
> > http://heshans.blogspot.com/
> >
>



-- 
Regards,
Heshan Suriyaarachchi

http://heshans.blogspot.com/

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message