On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Erin Noe-Payne > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Matt Franklin < >> [email protected] >> > >wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Matt Franklin < >> > > [email protected]>wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> >> > > wrote: >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Erin Noe-Payne >> > > >> > <[email protected]>wrote: >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Matt Franklin < >> > > >> [email protected] >> > > >> >> >wrote: >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:32 PM, Chris Geer < >> > [email protected] >> > > > >> > > >> >> wrote: >> > > >> >> > > I've done a first cut at adding some new CXF based REST web >> > > services >> > > >> >> > which >> > > >> >> > > use a different data model >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > As part of RAVE-924, I have created a new page model for web. >> > As I >> > > >> >> > was building it, it occurred to me that there are a couple of >> > > >> >> > different ways we will want/need to use the REST interface for >> > > Page: >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > 1) As an export mechanism >> > > >> >> > 2) As an OMDL export mechanism >> > > >> >> > 3) As an entry point for applications who want to render >> widgets >> > > >> >> > (including the portal) >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > IMO, #1 is straight forward. For number 2, I was thinking that >> > it >> > > >> >> > would be better if there was an OMDL mime type so the logical >> > > mapping >> > > >> >> > remains the same (/api/pages/{id}) as in the regular export. >> > What >> > > >> >> > does everyone think about using application/vnd.omdl+xml? >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> +1 here, I think mime type is the right approach. I have no >> opinion >> > > on >> > > >> the >> > > >> >> actual label of the mime type - that looks fine. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> > +1 >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > The hard part is how to deal with rendering. For this "mode" >> we >> > > will >> > > >> >> > need to export the Wookie iFrame URL (which is per-user), the >> > > >> >> > openSocial security token and the OpenSocial metadata. These >> > > require >> > > >> >> > a User to be authenticated and should not be exposed across >> > things >> > > >> >> > like the OMDL or Page export. What would everyone think about >> > the >> > > >> >> > following url for this case?: /api/pages/{id}?render=true >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> My gut reaction is that I dont like having a query string >> parameter >> > > to >> > > >> >> dictate this. It seems like it would be better for the endpoint >> to >> > be >> > > >> >> context aware somehow. Possibly check the request and deliver the >> > > >> >> render-ready data set if its coming from an authenticated rave >> > user? >> > > I >> > > >> need >> > > >> >> to think about that a bit more... >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> > I agree with Erin, not a fan of the query string. I'd rather see >> > > >> > /api/pages/{id}/rendered or something similar. >> > >> >> I also do not like /api/pages/{id}/rendered. Url parts should be >> semantically representative of resources, not of state or action. >> >> I'm now thinking... >> /api/pages/0 - this is a representation of the generic page for export >> /api/users/erin/pages/0 - this is a representation of the page in the >> context of user erin, with user-specific data needed for rendering >> attached. >> > > I like this in concept but let's play it out. Since all pages are user > specific (I think) why would the user link be the rendered? Maybe we don't > have a /api/pages/?? > > What about something like /api/user/erin/renderedpages/0
We also need to consider how to get the pages by context (IE Portal, Profile, etc) > > That would make it a resource and make more sense. > > Chris > >> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Is the intent to return the wookie and OS stuff in the same >> > response? >> > > I'm >> > > >> > not a fan of that, especially considering some people won't have >> > > wookie >> > > >> > installed at all (or OS). >> > > >> >> > > >> The approach I was going to take is to inject all the providers in >> the >> > > >> current context into a service and when the render condition is hit, >> > > >> have the provider return an object that extends the 'core' >> > > >> RegionWidget with its own properties. This way, there is no >> coupling >> > > >> to any specific provider. You would be able to have 0...n >> providers. >> > > >> >> > > >> >Maybe it makes more sense to have a different web >> > > >> > service for rendering by each provider??? >> > > >> >> > > >> This will end up causing serious performance bottlenecks in an >> already >> > > >> taxed system. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > I don't understand this comment. How would this cause serious >> > performance >> > > > bottlenecks? Having additional services won't cause any problems, and >> > > they >> > > > should only be called when they are used which would be no more/less >> > than >> > > > if it was a single service. I'm ok not doing this, just not sure what >> > > would >> > > > cause the major performance problems you are referring to. >> > > >> > > I should have been more clear. As we move away from server-side >> > > templating to client-side MVC to deliver the OOTB interface, these >> > > services will be used by the framework we have running in the browser. >> > > If it has to make AJAX calls for each widget to get the necessary >> > > information to render the widget, we are going to end up with a bunch >> > > of extra AJAX calls in order to initiate rendering of the the widgets >> > > on a page. Since widgets are already iFrames and require their own >> > > set of round trips to the widget provider, we now end up in a >> > > situation we have even more network requests to services. >> > > >> > > My thought in returning this information as part of the initial page >> > > REST call is that we can eliminate the extra round trips to the server >> > > to get the provider representation of the widget. >> > > >> > >> > That makes sense. The only thing I want to make sure we can do >> dynamically >> > add (reload) a gadget to a page without re-rendering the whole page. >> > >> >> Absolutely agree. This approach is in line with that goal. The basic >> mechanism would be that the page loads with it's initial state >> (bootstrapped data we are discussing now). If a user adds a new widget then >> the client side state is updated and appropriate rendering happens, as well >> as a post to server to update server side state; no page reload happens. >> >> >> > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> >Otherwise this "core" service has >> > > >> > to know about all the different providers which can be a problem >> > > moving >> > > >> > forward. >> > > >> >> > > >> It shouldn't have to know anything about any specific provider at >> all. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > ok >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > Since we want to be able to "bootstrap" the client MVC >> framework >> > > with >> > > >> >> > a pre-fetched & serialized version of the "Page" we will also >> > need >> > > to >> > > >> >> > do the same translation between what is currently returned from >> > the >> > > >> >> > service layer in both the server MVC and the REST API; which >> > raises >> > > >> >> > the question as to wether or not we just abstract all of that >> > > >> >> > functionality in the service layer and only expose the "web" >> > model >> > > >> >> > from that layer or do we create yet another layer to translate >> > from >> > > >> >> > the current service to the web model? >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> +0 from me. The work should definitely be happening in some >> service >> > > >> layer >> > > >> >> and keep the controllers light. Beyond that I'm not sure what >> will >> > > end >> > > >> up >> > > >> >> being cleaner. >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > Thoughts? >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
