Alessandro Vernet wrote
> What form do you think such a formal specification should take? I'm not
> sure
> that WSDL is a good choice (or even if it can be used) to document
> services
> that don't use SOAP, and to express requirements about headers. The
> persistence API isn't using OData, so that option is out. Could Swagger
> work?
I think OpenAPI Specification (formerly Swagger Specification) would be the
best choice, as it's probably the most popular and most used specification.
Also a lot of supportive tooling exists for it (not only from Swagger, but
f.e. Swagger Editor for creating a specification; Swagger UI for displaying
an interactive specification or some codegen tools).
Is it viable to create a GitHub issue for a REST API Specification for
Orbeon? Would anybody take care of it?
------
Alessandro Vernet wrote
> What is "the WAF"?
Web application firewal
------
Alessandro Vernet wrote
> And shouldn't or couldn't Orbeon Forms be deployed behind
> the firewall, with a reverse proxy only routing HTTP(S) requests to it?
Sadly it is not a viable option, as the customer requested FW is very strict
in only allowing specific SOAP requests. Additionally, getting another
server approved behind the FW is also not viable.
------
Alessandro Vernet wrote
> And
> if you have a requirement to have the services deployed separately behind
> the firewall, you could deploy there an Orbeon Forms and use its
> persistence
> API. Would something like this work?
>
> <
http://discuss.orbeon.com/file/t119778/Orbeon_Forms_persistence_behind_a_firewall.png
> >
So having 2 instances of Orbeon deployed? Interesting idea! However, it's
basically still limited by the strict policies. Also, we will be probably
using the PE version, so that would be a significant double investment for
the licenses.
-----
Thanks for all the advice! I hope we can at least figure out the OpenAPI
spec to ease my (and other future) custom Orbeon Persistence implementations
:)
Best regards,
Adrian