Henry, do you think the widget should be rendered into the same directory? Say my url is:
localhost:8080/olserver/somemapp/app.lzx?lzt=widget If we generate all the widget files into the same folder as the application, that would be technically the easiest solution, since no redirect is involved. But if we have different widget types (Opera, W3C, JIL), and we'd attacht a ?lzt=widget&widgettype=jil, maybe it would be better to create a subfolder (opera,w3cwidget,jil), and place all the files into that folder. Then send a redirect to the newly create or already existing widget folder. The idea is really to have a URL stored in your browser favorites, and to be able to point Chrome/Ripple to just that URL and automatically load the widget into the emulator. If we support &widgetttype=???, the convention could be: We have templates for Opera, JIL, Bondi and W3C widget in the lps/widgets/templates folder. Those would be used to generate the widget, unless the user creates a custom config.xml in the same folder where the LZX file lives. Convention would be: ?lzt=widget&widgettype=jil > looks for a jil.config.xml in the LZX folder ?lzt=widget&widgettype=opera > looks for a opera.config.xml in the LZX folder ?lzt=widget&widgettype=w3cwidget > looks for a w3cwidget.config.xml in the LZX folder and so one. If we have a new widget standards coming up, that mechanism could be easily extended. On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:15 AM, Henry Minsky <[email protected]> wrote: > we could do that... > > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 8:26 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I like that idea! lzt=widget >> >> On 2010-08-05, at 19:01, Raju Bitter wrote: >> >> > Yes, agree with Tucker. If you want a SOLO app, an index.html is a >> > good option as well. >> > >> > But when you are testing widgets, it would come in handy to be able to >> > generate the whole widget packet exploded into one folder, returning >> > the config.xml. That's the way you could directly load an OL app into >> > a browser emulator like Ripple. Using lzt=widget for example. >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:37 PM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Yes we should do this. >> >> >> >> See http://jira.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-9148 >> >> >> >> I think it is right to use index.html. It seems much more likely that >> >> someone will be making a widget than a solo app. If they are really >> >> making >> >> a solo app, they are more likely to be writing a custom wrapper page. >> >> >> >> On 2010-08-05, at 15:32, Henry Minsky wrote: >> >> >> >>> The W3C widget format is a standard, and very close to what we're >> >>> emitting >> >>> for SOLO zip archives. >> >>> >> >>> Should we just switch the SOLO deployer scripts over to the W3C format >> >>> ? >> >>> >> >>> The only difference that I can see at the moment Opera (the only >> >>> browser >> >>> that runs widgets that I know of) >> >>> requires currently that the start file be named as "index.html", >> >>> whereas >> >>> we've been making the solo deployer generate >> >>> a file named "yourapp.lzx.html". >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> -- >> >>> Henry Minsky >> >>> Software Architect >> >>> [email protected] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > -- > Henry Minsky > Software Architect > [email protected] > > >
