On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Matt Franklin <[email protected] > > > >> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Chris Geer <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 9:06 AM, Erin Noe-Payne < > >> [email protected] > >> >> >wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Hey All, > >> >> > > >> >> > Over the last couple months I have been working in the angular > branch > >> >> > to develop a strategy for updating rave portal to function as a > more > >> >> > flexible application that delivers the same current functionality > out > >> >> > of the box, but provides a more generic model for extension and > >> >> > treatment of new contexts. I want to outline that vision here and > try > >> >> > to describe what it would mean to develop in rave under this > >> paradigm. > >> >> > This would mean breaking changes for future versions of rave, so I > >> >> > want feedback. Would this make sense for how you use rave? What's > >> >> > good, what's bad? > >> >> > > >> >> > The proposal: > >> >> > > >> >> > - The server deals entirely in data through rest api's. Anything > that > >> >> > the rave portal ui currently does should be accessible & modifiable > >> >> > through a rest api. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> +1 - my only concern right now is security. Rave doesn't have a very > >> robust > >> >> security model right now as there is really only User and Admin. I > >> think we > >> >> need to expand this to include groups (we can use the existing groups > >> as > >> >> those aren't even used anywhere) and some security based on friends. > >> >> > >> > > >> > This should be enforced via the API, so we should be able to grow out > >> the > >> > security model there. Right now it is very model oriented with, as > you > >> > note, the only two roles being defined as user & admin. > >> > > >> > >> To be honest I'm not super familiar with what the current security > >> model looks like. But from the perspective of writing angular > >> applications that consume the api, my expectations would be: > >> > >> - I have restful endpoints to login and logout > >> - Every request I make against the api will correctly return 401 or > >> 403 status codes if there is any authentication problem. > >> - My app can then intercept these codes and properly redirect the UI > >> to login page / not authorized warning. > >> > > > > Erin, yes, from the UI perspective that is a pretty good viewpoint. From > > the server perspective though there is some more thought that is needed. > > For example, should every user on system be able to get all the > attributes > > about every person? Should a friend be able to see more details than > > another random person? The server needs to be able to have a model where > > decisions can be made on more than just is this person a normal user or > an > > admin. The UI also needs to be able to handle that as well. For example, > is > > you aren't frieds with someone certain fields may come back as null. Not > a > > huge deal but a consideration. > > > > The reason security is so important on the server side is once you move > > the UI to the client side you can no longer trust the client side because > > there is no guarantee that the request is coming from our client. At > least > > with the JSP model we could count of the view filtering data if needed, > now > > we have to do it in the web services directly. > > > > To reply to myself here....moving to a web service model, what > authentication approach were you planning on using? Since we'll be > deprecating the form based authentication, will we just move to basic > authentication? > I am not sure deprecating the login form makes a ton of sense from the OOTB portal. I think it should be easily replaceable; but, it is nice to have the user management/login from the OOTB perspective. I would imagine that the User login /management section of rave is configured as the URL that the users are directed to login at. > > > > > Chris > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > - No more jsp's. Probably no more server-side view composition at > >> all. > >> >> > The views are served entirely as static files - html, js, css - and > >> >> > composition and routing are handled client-side via angular.js > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> +1 - What I want to know is can I run an angular based gadget inside > >> the > >> >> angular based Rave? Does that even make sense, and is there anyway > >> >> to optimize it? > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > - Rave ships with a portal and a profile context. Each context > >> >> > represents a workspace and has complete ownership of its own > >> branding, > >> >> > navigation, etc. If you want to add a new context X it should > involve > >> >> > no overlay, just extension. > >> >> > -- In terms of data, you will simply add new pages with a context > of > >> >> > X, and the api will deliver them. > >> >> > -- In terms of ui and routing, the portal application has a > wildcard > >> >> > endpoint that looks like "/{context}/**". Out of the box, {context} > >> >> > will be matched against a directory at static/html/{context}. So > you > >> >> > just add static/html/X. This will serve up an angularjs single-page > >> >> > app that displays its own ui, manages its own routing etc. This > gives > >> >> > us complete flexibility and customizability for any new context. > >> Also, > >> >> > because the static content is simply being served from a url, it > >> could > >> >> > just as easily be coming from a cms or another server as from the > >> >> > portal's static directory. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> +0 - I guess I still don't fully understand the whole context concept > >> so I > >> >> just need to look into it more. > >> >> > >> > > >> > A context to me is just a workspace that allows you to define a > specific > >> > function that the UI is to perform. From there the data model of Rave > >> is > >> > used to manage widgets within the construct of the context. For > >> instance, > >> > profile & portal are contexts. You could also have group, project, > >> site, > >> > organization or other top level contexts. > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > - To support that flexibility but still stay DRY, view components > (in > >> >> > angular-speak that is directives and templates, which are roughly > >> >> > analogous to jsp tags) will be modular and re-usable. So components > >> >> > that we provide in the out of the box contexts like navigation or > >> >> > widget chrome should be directives that can be require()'d and > >> re-used > >> >> > by your new custom context. Likewise you should be able to write > and > >> >> > share any custom directives between your various contexts. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > - To knit everything together I think we will need an AMD script > >> loader, > >> >> > probably require.js. This would allow your custom context to easily > >> >> > build out a dependency tree, get the features it needs for its > >> context > >> >> > without any extra weight, and to optimize / concat / minify > resources > >> >> > for each context. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> +0 - If it's needed get it. > >> >> > >> > > >> > There is a very nice performance benefit to using an AMD loader, > >> especially > >> > if we have a strong set of lifecycle events in the application. It > >> should > >> > allow us to start initializing widgets earlier and make a "snappier" > UI. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > Let me know what you think. > >> >> > Thanks, > >> >> > Erin > >> >> > > >> >> > >> > > > > >
