cillin/evotraders
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

docs: remove references to deleted OpenClaw REST facade (port 8004)

Browse Source 
Update all documentation to reflect removal of OpenClaw REST service:
- README.md, README_zh.md: remove service table entry
- deploy/README.md: update port range 8000-8003
- services/README.md: remove 8004 references and service list
- docs/compat-removal-plan.md: remove REST surface mention
- docs/current-architecture.md: remove service reference
- docs/legacy-inventory.md: simplify to WebSocket-only description

Follow-up to: refactor(openclaw): remove REST facade
This commit is contained in:
cillin
2026-04-02 11:13:34 +08:00
parent ecc7623093
commit fd71ee5e57
7 changed files with 4 additions and 77 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

66
docs/legacy-inventory.md
View File

@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ topology and service-routing policy are frozen.
| Surface | Current State | Decision Needed |
|---------|---------------|-----------------|
| OpenClaw dual integration | REST facade (`:8004`) + Gateway WebSocket (`:18789`) | Which surface is the long-term contract? |
| OpenClaw integration | Gateway WebSocket (port 18789) | Stable — REST facade removed |
| Env-dependent service fallbacks | `TRADING_SERVICE_URL`, `NEWS_SERVICE_URL` fallbacks to local modules | Remove fallbacks and require explicit URLs? |
| Split-service production deploy | Docs show gateway-first, dev uses split-service | Align production with dev topology? |
@@ -104,70 +104,6 @@ python3 -m backend.main \
**Ownership**: ops-team
**Status**: Stable and intentional
### OpenClaw Dual Integration
Two different integration surfaces exist for OpenClaw:
#### A. REST Facade (Port 8004)
**File**: `backend/apps/openclaw_service.py`
**Routes**: `backend/api/openclaw.py` (prefix `/api/openclaw`)
**Purpose**:
- Read-only OpenClaw CLI integration
- Typed Pydantic models for all responses
- Direct HTTP/REST access to OpenClaw state
**Use when**:
- You need typed, stable API contracts
- You want to poll OpenClaw status from external systems
- You need programmatic access without WebSocket complexity
**Example**:
```bash
curl http://localhost:8004/api/openclaw/status
```
#### B. Gateway WebSocket Integration (Port 18789)
**Files**:
- `backend/services/gateway_openclaw_handlers.py`
- `shared/client/openclaw_websocket_client.py`
**Purpose**:
- Real-time bidirectional communication with OpenClaw
- Event streaming and live updates
- Integration with Gateway event flow
**Use when**:
- You need real-time updates
- You're already connected to Gateway WebSocket
- You want event-driven rather than polling architecture
**Example**:
```javascript
// Frontend connects to ws://localhost:18789
const ws = new WebSocket('ws://localhost:18789');
```
#### Key Differences
| Aspect | REST Facade (8004) | Gateway WebSocket (18789) |
|--------|-------------------|---------------------------|
| Protocol | HTTP/REST | WebSocket |
| Access pattern | Request/response | Event-driven |
| Typing | Pydantic models | JSON messages |
| Real-time | Polling required | Push notifications |
| Use case | External integrations, scripts | Frontend, live dashboards |
| Stability | Higher (explicit contracts) | Evolving with Gateway |
**Decision needed**: Which surface becomes the long-term contract?
- REST facade is more stable but read-only
- WebSocket integration is more capable but tied to Gateway evolution
**Ownership**: runtime-team
**Status**: Deferred until topology final
### Dashboard Export Layer
**Files**: `runs/<run_id>/team_dashboard/*.json`