Thanks for taking the time Scott. That's a really comprehensive answer. On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Scott Wilson < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2011, at 18:49, Tharindu Mathew wrote: > > Thanks for the link Scott. Since it's a visual product, I would've just > loved to see what it looks like instantly rather than downloading, so I > thought of letting you guys know. > > > Yep, I agree > > > I downloaded and fired up the server. I really liked the demos. It seems to > me at first glance that widgets are more flexible than gadgets. But i'm not > sure. So I'd like to ask a few questions from the Wookie community since you > guys are experts in the space. > > What are the pros and cons of widgets over gadgets? Can a widget do > more/less than a gadget? What use cases are better suited for gadgets and > what for widgets? > > > Its an excellent question! > > Widgets and Gadgets have different origins, but converge in some common > areas. > > OpenSocial gadgets originally were developed as a more open alternative to > things like Facebook Applications - so externally-hosted applications > embedded in social networking sites. This was based on iGoogle Gadgets > originally. So a Gadget is a remotely-hosted website that is made available > within another application. > > Widgets started up in W3C to create a harmonised spec for things like Apple > Dashboard Widgets, Windows SIdebar Gadgets, Nokia Widgets, Opera Widgets, > Konfabulator etc - so basically packaged web applications installed either > in a desktop environment or a mobile device. > > However it became clear early on that the W3C spec was generic enough to be > used in wider range of contexts, and so we started work on Wookie to enable > their use in websites; several other groups also came to the same conclusion > and did the same in their products. Today they are also used for other > things too, like Opera Extensions. > > One advantage of Widgets is that they are already compatible with mobile > devices using a "widget runtime" (WRT) such as Obigo or Opera WAC for > Android. They can also be fully offline applications. > > An advantage of OpenSocial is the APIs for connecting with friends lists > and other social networking features. It also suits hosted apps rather than > installed apps - so you can update a Gadget by changing the code on your > website. (A disadvantage for the user is that this means if the server the > gadget developers uses for hosting the gadget has a problem, you lose access > to it.) > > At the moment, there is an overlap between Gadgets and Widgets - so for > example, we decided early on to also enable Wookie to integrate with Shindig > so that users could use both types of Widget/Gadget and not have to make a > choice between them (see > http://incubator.apache.org/wookie/integrating-wookie-with-shindig.html) > We also consciously adopted some of the design conventions and terminology > from Shindig into Wookie to make it less confusing. > > Personally I think the Widget/Gadget distinction will eventually fade > away. In the meantime, Wookie and Shindig communities can work together to > make it less of an issue for the user, who typically just wants the choice > of the best apps for their platform and the freedom to use them in a range > of contexts (including mobile) rather than worry about competing standards > or incompatible technologies. > > At the recent OpenSocial event in the Netherlands it was also discussed > whether the OpenSocial "core gadget specification" (the XML format used in > Gadgets) might in future be harmonized with W3C Widgets, and we started some > discussions of what would be needed - there isn't a lot of difference at a > basic level of things like metadata and packaging, and W3C Widgets could be > extended to handle remote as well as local app content. It is also possible > to use the <feature> element to include social APIs in W3C Widgets. I'm not > sure if the time is quite right to make this happen, but we have at least > started the conversation. > > PS You might also find this post I wrote recently useful in picturing the > overall standards landscape: > http://scottbw.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/web-apps-a-snapshot-of-the-standards-landscape/ > > I hope you won't mind these dumb questions from a new user. > > > Not at all, its the right kind of question. > > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:50 PM, Scott Wilson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 24 Feb 2011, at 07:03, Tharindu Mathew wrote: >> >> The url I used : http://incubator.apache.org/wookie/widget-demo.html >> >> >> Thank you for letting us know Tharindu, we should get it up and running >> again! >> >> In the meantime, if you download the "standalone" release candidate then >> you can try Wookie out very simply on your computer by running "start.bat" >> or "start.sh": >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~psharples/wookie/staging-area/0p9p0/org.apache.incubator.wookie-standalone-RC-0.9.0-20110203.zip >> >> It uses an embedded web server and database so there is nothing else to >> set up. >> >> S >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Tharindu Mathew <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I wanted to get a taste of the wookie project and clicked on your demo >>> but it returned "resource not available" pages. >>> >>> I hope I can see the demos soon :) >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Tharindu >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Tharindu >> >> >> > > > -- > Regards, > > Tharindu > > > -- Regards, Tharindu
