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 <d...@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 <dar...@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 <d...@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" <dar...@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 >>
