Hi Kambiz, my apologies ... responding to your mail fell off my todo list.
It seems that Willie (just posted on the mailing list) has similar requirements to customize the RO viewer. to you both: I'd like to accommodate these new requirements somehow... over and above me just saying to implement your own RepresentationService. Not sure how, though, other than to ask for some precise examples as to what exactly folks would like to see as extensions to the "out-of-the-box" representations generated by the RO viewer. Or, github pull requests are the best way for you to describe what's needed. I can then review and if necessary add configuration flags or extensions to the Accept header handling to allow the RO viewer to support these. Any thoughts? Dan On 28 September 2015 at 17:34, Kambiz Darabi <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, > > I wanted to ask whether you had the time to look into this. > > If not, I would be willing to invest some time, but would need a bit of > advice on how to tackle it. > > Thanks > > > Kambiz > > On 2015-08-17 17:32 CEST, Dan Haywood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Kambiz, > > No, there isn't support at the moment. > > > > I would imagine it would probably take a couple of days to implement for > > me, perhaps less. For someone less familiar with the code, perhaps double > > that. > > > > Once I have 1.9.0 released (in the next week hopefully) I'll spend a > couple > > of evenings looking at it to see if I can "break the back of it" (eg that > > you might finish it off if you really need the feature). > > > > Hope that sounds OK to you.. > > > > Cheers, Dan > > On 17 Aug 2015 14:09, "Kambiz Darabi" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> is Isis capable of supporting the simple domain model as described in > >> section 1.25.1 of the RO spec? > >> > >> I ask because of Richard Pawson's answer to my question on github: > >> > >> https://github.com/SpiroLibraries/Spiro.Modern/issues/2 > >> > >> > I'm afraid this is not going to be straightforward. Either Isis needs > >> > to support the 'simple' domain model (my strong preference!), or Spiro > >> > needs to be extended to work with the formal model (a lot of change - > >> > and, inherently, much more complex than working with the simple > >> > approach). I have suggested to Dan that in the next version of the RO > >> > spec that the Simple domain model should be mandatory and the formal > >> > one an optional extra. > >> > >> If there is no built-in support, I would be interested in an estimate of > >> how much effort would be needed to implement that functionality. > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> > >> Kambiz > >> >
