You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@isis.apache.org by Kambiz Darabi <da...@m-creations.com> on 2015/08/17 15:09:24 UTC
Spiro support in Isis
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
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
I've raised ISIS-1236 for extending RO viewer to support the "simple"
domain model (to integrate with Spiro), and I've raised ISIS-1237 for
Swagger integration work.
will aim to address ISIS-1236 as part of 1.11.0.
Thx
Dan
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1236
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ISIS-1237
On 14 October 2015 at 08:42, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
wrote:
> OK, let me put a day aside to get a better handle on all this cool stuff.
>
> Thanks for the links.
>
> Cheers
> Dan
>
>
> On 14 October 2015 at 08:29, Óscar Bou - GOVERTIS <o....@govertis.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi Dan.
>>
>> You know we're using Wavemaker for the front-end.
>>
>> Most recent version 7 uses Swagger as the way to document the
>> auto-generated APIs [1], but all JavaScript widgets can be render any JSON
>> representation with limitations detailed in [2], [3].
>>
>> [1]
>> http://www.wavemaker.com/latest/wavemaker-api-designer-brings-api-driven-development-to-custom-built-enterprise-applications/
>> [2]
>> http://www.wavemaker.com/learn/topics/studio/integrate/external-services/
>> [3]
>> http://www.wavemaker.com/learn/docs/importing-web-services/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Disculpa que sea breve.
>> Enviado desde mi móvil
>> > El 14 oct 2015, a las 9:07, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
>> escribió:
>> >
>> > Hi Oscar,
>> >
>> > I think that Swagger is a mechanism primarily for documenting
>> > representations, rather than specifying them.
>> >
>> > But I haven't played with it, so I might be wrong.
>> >
>> > I do also think we should provide a Swagger (or Blueprints, or RAML)
>> > integration, though.
>> >
>> > I guess maybe I need to roll my sleeves up and dig into all this (sigh).
>> >
>> > Thx
>> > Dan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 14 October 2015 at 08:04, Óscar Bou - GOVERTIS <o....@govertis.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Sorry for this, but would be of any help to fully support something
>> like
>> >> Swagger (perhaps there are better options; thought it was somewhat
>> >> supported through Maven?) ?
>> >>
>> >> If all we could agree on a common well-known standard in addition to RO
>> >> specification it would help our current custom viewer projects and
>> others
>> >> to come.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >>
>> >> Oscar
>> >>
>> >>> El 14 oct 2015, a las 8:53, Dan Haywood <dan@haywood-associates.co.uk
>> >
>> >> escribió:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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 <darabi@m-creations.com
>> >
>> >> 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 <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
>> >>>> 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" <da...@m-creations.com>
>> 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
>> >>>>
>> >>
>>
>
>
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
OK, let me put a day aside to get a better handle on all this cool stuff.
Thanks for the links.
Cheers
Dan
On 14 October 2015 at 08:29, Óscar Bou - GOVERTIS <o....@govertis.com>
wrote:
>
>
> Hi Dan.
>
> You know we're using Wavemaker for the front-end.
>
> Most recent version 7 uses Swagger as the way to document the
> auto-generated APIs [1], but all JavaScript widgets can be render any JSON
> representation with limitations detailed in [2], [3].
>
> [1]
> http://www.wavemaker.com/latest/wavemaker-api-designer-brings-api-driven-development-to-custom-built-enterprise-applications/
> [2]
> http://www.wavemaker.com/learn/topics/studio/integrate/external-services/
> [3]
> http://www.wavemaker.com/learn/docs/importing-web-services/
>
>
>
>
>
> Disculpa que sea breve.
> Enviado desde mi móvil
> > El 14 oct 2015, a las 9:07, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
> escribió:
> >
> > Hi Oscar,
> >
> > I think that Swagger is a mechanism primarily for documenting
> > representations, rather than specifying them.
> >
> > But I haven't played with it, so I might be wrong.
> >
> > I do also think we should provide a Swagger (or Blueprints, or RAML)
> > integration, though.
> >
> > I guess maybe I need to roll my sleeves up and dig into all this (sigh).
> >
> > Thx
> > Dan
> >
> >
> >
> > On 14 October 2015 at 08:04, Óscar Bou - GOVERTIS <o....@govertis.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Sorry for this, but would be of any help to fully support something
> like
> >> Swagger (perhaps there are better options; thought it was somewhat
> >> supported through Maven?) ?
> >>
> >> If all we could agree on a common well-known standard in addition to RO
> >> specification it would help our current custom viewer projects and
> others
> >> to come.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Oscar
> >>
> >>> El 14 oct 2015, a las 8:53, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
> >> escribió:
> >>>
> >>> 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 <da...@m-creations.com>
> >> 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 <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
> >>>> 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" <da...@m-creations.com>
> 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
> >>>>
> >>
>
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Óscar Bou - GOVERTIS <o....@govertis.com>.
Hi Dan.
You know we're using Wavemaker for the front-end.
Most recent version 7 uses Swagger as the way to document the auto-generated APIs [1], but all JavaScript widgets can be render any JSON representation with limitations detailed in [2], [3].
[1] http://www.wavemaker.com/latest/wavemaker-api-designer-brings-api-driven-development-to-custom-built-enterprise-applications/
[2] http://www.wavemaker.com/learn/topics/studio/integrate/external-services/
[3]
http://www.wavemaker.com/learn/docs/importing-web-services/
Disculpa que sea breve.
Enviado desde mi móvil
> El 14 oct 2015, a las 9:07, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> escribió:
>
> Hi Oscar,
>
> I think that Swagger is a mechanism primarily for documenting
> representations, rather than specifying them.
>
> But I haven't played with it, so I might be wrong.
>
> I do also think we should provide a Swagger (or Blueprints, or RAML)
> integration, though.
>
> I guess maybe I need to roll my sleeves up and dig into all this (sigh).
>
> Thx
> Dan
>
>
>
> On 14 October 2015 at 08:04, Óscar Bou - GOVERTIS <o....@govertis.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sorry for this, but would be of any help to fully support something like
>> Swagger (perhaps there are better options; thought it was somewhat
>> supported through Maven?) ?
>>
>> If all we could agree on a common well-known standard in addition to RO
>> specification it would help our current custom viewer projects and others
>> to come.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Oscar
>>
>>> El 14 oct 2015, a las 8:53, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
>> escribió:
>>>
>>> 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 <da...@m-creations.com>
>> 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 <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
>>>> 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" <da...@m-creations.com> 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
>>>>
>>
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
Hi Oscar,
I think that Swagger is a mechanism primarily for documenting
representations, rather than specifying them.
But I haven't played with it, so I might be wrong.
I do also think we should provide a Swagger (or Blueprints, or RAML)
integration, though.
I guess maybe I need to roll my sleeves up and dig into all this (sigh).
Thx
Dan
On 14 October 2015 at 08:04, Óscar Bou - GOVERTIS <o....@govertis.com>
wrote:
>
> Sorry for this, but would be of any help to fully support something like
> Swagger (perhaps there are better options; thought it was somewhat
> supported through Maven?) ?
>
> If all we could agree on a common well-known standard in addition to RO
> specification it would help our current custom viewer projects and others
> to come.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Oscar
>
> > El 14 oct 2015, a las 8:53, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
> escribió:
> >
> > 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 <da...@m-creations.com>
> 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 <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
> >> 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" <da...@m-creations.com> 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
> >>
>
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Óscar Bou - GOVERTIS <o....@govertis.com>.
Sorry for this, but would be of any help to fully support something like Swagger (perhaps there are better options; thought it was somewhat supported through Maven?) ?
If all we could agree on a common well-known standard in addition to RO specification it would help our current custom viewer projects and others to come.
Thanks,
Oscar
> El 14 oct 2015, a las 8:53, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> escribió:
>
> 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 <da...@m-creations.com> 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 <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
>> 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" <da...@m-creations.com> 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
>>
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
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 <da...@m-creations.com> 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 <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
> 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" <da...@m-creations.com> 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
> >>
>
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Kambiz Darabi <da...@m-creations.com>.
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 <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk> 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" <da...@m-creations.com> 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
>>
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Kambiz Darabi <da...@m-creations.com>.
Hi Jeroen,
On 2015-08-17 17:44 CEST, Jeroen van der Wal <je...@stromboli.it> wrote:
> Hi Kambiz,
>
> Do you want to use Spiro as a client against an Apache Isis application or
> creating a bespoke interface and aiming for lighter JSON payloads? In the
> latter case you might want to take a look at pluggable representations of
> the Restful viewer [1].
thank you for the link which is very informative, but my use case would
in fact be the first one.
Cheers
Kambiz
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Jeroen van der Wal <je...@stromboli.it>.
Hi Kambiz,
Do you want to use Spiro as a client against an Apache Isis application or
creating a bespoke interface and aiming for lighter JSON payloads? In the
latter case you might want to take a look at pluggable representations of
the Restful viewer [1].
Cheers,
Jeroen
[1]
http://isis.apache.org/guides/ug.html#_ug_extending_restfulobjects-viewer
On 17 August 2015 at 17:32, Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>
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" <da...@m-creations.com> 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
> >
>
Re: Spiro support in Isis
Posted by Dan Haywood <da...@haywood-associates.co.uk>.
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" <da...@m-creations.com> 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
>