I'm up for finally implementing this. We can be back compatible until LPS 6.0 I guess.
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 7:52 AM, P T Withington <[email protected]> wrote: > When doing this, please, please, please consider implementing the ideas in: > > http://jira.openlaszlo.org/jira/browse/LPP-3479 > > before we clutter the query-arg namespace further. Maybe rather than > renaming `lzt` (for LZ request Type), to `wrapper`, we should use something > more generic like `package`? (Open to suggestions for better names!) Don's > suggestion on LPP-3749 would allow multiple parameters for the package > option, for example: > > ?lzoptions=runtime(html5),package(widget,jil) > > or, > > ?lzoptions=runtime(swf10),package(widget,android) > > [Every time we add a new option we take away from the query-arg parameters > namespace, and we have to go find all the places in the wrappers and the > compiler where we sort and filter and pass on the options to the app. We > always make the excuse that we don't have time to implement the right > solution. But _someday_ we really need to clean this up. And this seems > like a nice opportunity to do that, especially given the need for multiple > parameters for the widget packaging.] > > On 2010-08-06, at 05:09, Raju Bitter wrote: > > > 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] > >> > >> > >> > > -- Henry Minsky Software Architect [email protected]
