On Wednesday, March 27, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote: > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matt Franklin > <[email protected]<javascript:;> > >wrote: > > > 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 > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >I don't think pages are user-specific, they just have a relationship to > users. They are still a first class resource in rave and should be > accessible independent of user, so /api/pages should remain imo. There's > nothing wrong with having multiple api routes to arrive at the same > resource. > > +1
> > > We also need to consider how to get the pages by context (IE Portal, > > Profile, etc) > > > what do you mean by this? Filtering the data set by a property? Portal, > profile or whatever else are just a property of the page. Yes, but to build the portal, you will need to request all pages for a user in the portal context. In the profile, you will need to do the same in that context. This extends to any context that developers want to support. > > > > > > > > > > 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
