[Registry-dev] Registry UI

[Glen Daniels]

Hi Chathura:

I agree we should have a full-featured registry API.  I'm not so sure I 
agree that you shouldn't be able to do useful things by pointing a 
browser at the registry directly (like an SVN view).  I guess to some 
extent it depends on how easy it would be for us to distinguish a 
browser-based GET from an API-based GET - I assume that would be some 
combination of the Accept: header and User-agent:, but I'm not sure how 
well the current crop of browsers does with those.  If they all actually 
sent Accept headers with HTML and XHTML media types listed first, it 
would be pretty easy to key off that in deciding whether to send a 
mini-UI or simply the raw resource data....

--Glen

Chathura C. Ekanayake wrote:
> 
> Currently we are having two UIs for the registry.
> 
> 1) The REST UI which allows to browse the registry like a SVN view. It 
> displays simple information about
> resources like last updated time, author, etc. Resources can be uploaded 
> using it. But we can't set resource
> metadata, add comments, add tags, etc using it.
> 
> 2) UI developed for the mashup site using the registry. We developed it 
> as a use case of the registry, which allows
> us to gather requirements for the registry and the registry UI. But 
> according to the current design, it uses a flat structure
> (without using directories). So it does not expose the directory 
> browsing, creation, etc.
> 
> I think we should have a separate web admin UI for the registry. Without 
> such UI, exposing all the features of the registry,
> it is difficult to have a feeling about the registry functionality and 
> possible improvements. It is also easier for the QA team
> to test the registry if we provide a proper UI, than testing the java 
> API. But I don't think that we have time to build such UI
> before the 0.1 release. So I think we can do the 0.1 with REST UI and 
> switch to a proper admin UI after that.
> 
> And I also think that the REST UI should not be a UI, but only a REST 
> API. That means, it should not produce html to use it from a browser,
> but produce some sort of xml (e.g. Atom according to APP), which can be 
> used from other applications to communicate with the registry.
> 
> Thoughts...
> 
> Thanks,
> Chathura
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Registry-dev mailing list
> Registry-dev at wso2.org
> http://wso2.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/registry-dev
>