Then why not simply using lzt=operawidget, lzt=jilwidget? This would be consistent with the swf approach, keeping Raju's proposal feasable. If you have lzt=widget and widgettype is unbound, then you should default to one of the options or raise an error. Regards,
Quirino 2010/8/6 Raju Bitter <[email protected]> > 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] > > > > > > > > -- Quirino Zagarese PhD Student - Department of Engineering - University of Sannio Italian OpenLaszlo Community - www.laszloitalia.org EU4RIA: Laszlo+Java, easily - eu4ria.googlecode.com
