I bet André can write a regex that will parse them. :) On 2010-08-08, at 16:08, Henry Minsky wrote:
> I made a start at implementing this mechanism on the server side, but ran > into some difficulties in the javascript side (embed-new.js and associated > code) when processing the new style of query arg. I think I will try and > make this work the next time Max and I are in the same room together! > > > 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]
