incubator-wookie-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Wookie gadget "store" moved to Rave?
Date Wed, 11 May 2011 10:47:46 GMT
On 11/05/2011 10:49, Paul Sharples wrote:
> On 11/05/2011 10:27, Ross Gardler wrote:
>> On 11/05/2011 09:25, Steve Lee wrote:


>>>> Proposal
>>>> ========
>>>> Wookie should deprecate all UI code and provide integration with Rave,
>>>> thereby allowing Rave to host W3C Widgets as well as OpenSocial
>>>> gadgets. Our
>>>> UI will no longer be interactive. All administration activities will be
>>>> carried out via a command line application, interfacing with Wookie
>>>> via the
>>>> REST API.
>>> Util now Wookie has required simple UI to allow basic evaluation
>>> testing and developing. If these functions move to another project, I
>>> would suggest that stand-alone unit tests would still be required at a
>>> minimum, and perhaps a simple demo. It seems much of this could be
>>> done with some mock widgets and the command line / REST access.
>> I'm saying *no* UI code. Wookie becomes a library. The moment we start
>> bringing UI code back in for any reason we start to blur the lines.
>> Testing is not a problem (in fact it is simplified) and instructions
>> for instantiating a widget and viewing it in browser would be just a
>> few lines long. In fact there is no reason why the CLI couldn't
>> optionally fire up a browser when a widget is instantiated.
>> e.g. wookie instantiate [WIDGET_ID] [PROPERTIES] --view
> ok, I can see the logic in doing this now, but my only other question is
> how we handle authentication to the admin facilities. (i.e at the moment
> you have to "login" to the admin section to do certain things using the
> web UI). Do we still keep the existing wookie authentication for this?

The REST API needs to handle authentication. The CLI should communicate 
via the REST API. I don't see that this is any different than accessing 

I'm not familiar with the current authentication process. Is this possible?

> I'm just wondering if there are any other "gotchas" we'll only find later.

Bound to be ;-)


View raw message