Ok, I got it, very open, I like it :-) 2010/8/6 Raju Bitter <[email protected]>
> The file structure for the widgets is identical, only the config.xml > differs. Using lzt=widget will generate all the files necessary for a > widget. The 2nd parameter is used only to handle the config.xml. An > Opera Widget and a JIL widget still are the same runtime (same JS > file, HTML page, etc.). The 2nd parameter is useful if you have a > custom widget format which is not known by OpenLaszlo. Let's say, XYZ > widget standard. Even if the OpenLaszlo server doesn't know about that > standard, someone could place a xyz.config.xml into the the folder > with the LZX file, compile and would get the widget generated. > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Quirino Zagarese > <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > -- Quirino Zagarese PhD Student - Department of Engineering - University of Sannio Italian OpenLaszlo Community - www.laszloitalia.org EU4RIA: Laszlo+Java, easily - eu4ria.googlecode.com
