rave-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chris Geer <ch...@cxtsoftware.com>
Subject Re: CXF Rest + WS Data Model
Date Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:19:39 GMT
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Erin Noe-Payne <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Matt Franklin <m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, March 27, 2013, Erin Noe-Payne wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 4:12 PM, Matt Franklin <
> m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > <javascript:;>
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 3:35 PM, Chris Geer <chris@cxtsoftware.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Erin Noe-Payne
> > > > > <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Chris Geer <
> chris@cxtsoftware.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Matt Franklin <
> > > > >> m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > > > >> > >wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Chris Geer <
> > > chris@cxtsoftware.com>
> > > > >> > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:27 AM, Matt Franklin
<
> > > > >> > > m.ben.franklin@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Chris Geer
<
> > > > chris@cxtsoftware.com>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Erin
Noe-Payne
> > > > >> > > >> > <erin.noe.payne@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM,
Matt Franklin <
> > > > >> > > >> m.ben.franklin@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > >> >> >wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 5:32
PM, Chris Geer <
> > > > >> > chris@cxtsoftware.com
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >> >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > I've done a first cut at
adding some new CXF based
> > REST
> > > > web
> > > > >> > > services
> > > > >> > > >> >> > which
> > > > >> > > >> >> > > use a different data model
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > As part of RAVE-924, I have
created a new page model
> for
> > > > web.
> > > > >> >  As I
> > > > >> > > >> >> > was building it, it occurred
to me that there are a
> > couple
> > > > of
> > > > >> > > >> >> > different ways we will want/need
to use the REST
> > interface
> > > > for
> > > > >> > > Page:
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > 1) As an export mechanism
> > > > >> > > >> >> > 2) As an OMDL export mechanism
> > > > >> > > >> >> > 3) As an entry point for applications
who want to
> render
> > > > >> widgets
> > > > >> > > >> >> > (including the portal)
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >> > IMO, #1 is straight forward.
 For number 2, I was
> > thinking
> > > > that
> > > > >> > it
> > > > >> > > >> >> > would be better if there was
an OMDL mime type so the
> > > > logical
> > > > >> > > mapping
> > > > >> > > >> >> > remains the same (/api/pages/{id})
as in the regular
> > > export.
> > > > >> >  What
> > > > >> > > >> >> > does everyone think about using
> > application/vnd.omdl+xml?
> > > > >> > > >> >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >> >> +1 here, I think mime type is the
right approach. I have
> > no
> > > > >> opinion
> > > > >> > > on
> > > > >> > > >> the
> > > > >> > > >> >> actual label of the mime type - that
looks fine.
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > +1
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > >I don't think pages are user-specific, they just have a relationship
> > to
> > > users. They are still a first class resource in rave and should be
> > > accessible independent of user, so /api/pages should remain imo.
> There's
> > > nothing wrong with having multiple api routes to arrive at the same
> > > resource.
> > >
> > >
> > +1
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > We also need to consider how to get the pages by context (IE Portal,
> > > > Profile, etc)
> > >
> > >
> > > what do you mean by this? Filtering the data set by a property? Portal,
> > > profile or whatever else are just a property of the page.
> >
> >
> > Yes, but to build the portal, you will need to request all pages for a
> user
> > in the portal context.  In the profile, you will need to do the same in
> > that context.  This extends to any context that developers want to
> support.
> >
> >
> >
> So I think that's just looks like filtering. Simplest way is query string
> and strict matching.
> /api/users/erin/pages?type=portal
>

I have no problem with the query param in this case but I still don't
understand the need. How can the same page be rendered differently? Given a
single page definition, what would be different when rendered via type
portal vs profile?

>
> If we see a need we could potentially support a more complex querying
> syntax. I've always been a little unclear about how this jives with REST
> though...
>
> Whatever we do though shouldn't be a specific solution for pages but a
> general way of filtering data sets.
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > That would make it a resource and make more sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Chris
> > > > >
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > >> > > >> > Is the intent to return the wookie and
OS stuff in the
> same
> > > > >> > response?
> > > > >> > > I'm
> > > > >> > > >> > not a fan of that, especially considering
some people
> won't
> > > > have
> > > > >> > > wookie
> > > > >> > > >> > installed at all (or OS).
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> The approach I was going to take is to inject
all the
> > providers
> > > > in
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > >> current context into a service and when the
render
> condition
> > is
> > > > hit,
> > > > >> > > >> have the provider return an object that extends
the 'core'
> > > > >> > > >> RegionWidget with its own properties.  This
way, there is
> no
> > > > >> coupling
> > > > >> > > >> to any specific provider.  You would be able
to have 0...n
> > > > >> providers.
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >Maybe it makes more sense to have a different
web
> > > > >> > > >> > service for rendering by each provider???
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> This will end up causing serious performance
bottlenecks in
> > an
> > > > >> already
> > > > >> > > >> taxed system.
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > I don't understand this comment. How would this
cause
> serious
> > > > >> > performance
> > > > >> > > > bottlenecks? Having additional services won't
cause any
> > > problems,
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > they
> > > > >> > > > should only be called when they are used which
would be no
> > > > more/less
> > > > >> > than
> > > > >> > > > if it was a single service. I'm ok not doing this,
just not
> > sure
> > > > what
> > > > >> > > would
> > > > >> > > > cause the major performance problems you are referring
to.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > I should have been more clear.  As we move away from
> server-side
> > > > >> > > templating to client-side MVC to deliver the OOTB interface,
> > these
> > > > >> > > services will be used by the framework we have running
in the
> > > > browser.
> > > > >> > >  If it has to make AJAX calls for each widget to get
the
> > necessary
> > > > >> > > information to render the widget, we are going to end
up with
> a
> > > > bunch
> > > > >> > > of extra AJAX calls in order to initiate rendering
of the the
> > > > widgets
> > > > >> > > on a page.  Since widgets are already iFrames and require
> their
> > > own
> > > > >> > > set of round trips to the widget provider, we now end
up in a
> > > > >> > > situation we have even more network requests to services.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > My thought in returning this information as part of
the
> initial
> > > page
> > > > >> > > REST call is that we can eliminate the extra round
trips to
> the
> > > > server
> > > > >> > > to get the provider representation of the widget.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > That makes sense. The only thing I want to make sure we
can do
> > > > >> dynamically
> > > > >> > add (reload) a gadget to a page without re-rendering the
whole
> > page.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Absolutely agree. This approach is in line with that goal. The
> basic
> > > > >> mechanism would be that the page loads with it's initial state
> > > > >> (bootstrapped data we are discussing now). If a user adds a new
> > widget
> > > > then
> > > > >> the client side state is updated and appropriate rendering
> happens,
> > as
> > > > well
> > > > >> as a post to server to update server side state; no page reload
> > > happens.
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> >Otherwise this "core" service has
> > > > >> > > >> > to know about all the different providers
which can be a
> > > > problem
> > > > >> > > moving
> > > > >> > > >> > forward.
> > > > >> > > >>
> > > > >> > > >> It shouldn't have to
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message