wsrp-conformance message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-conformance] [AS096]
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 06:53:42 -0400
Going back to the conformance statement,
I guess the key question is defining what "appropriate default behavior"
means. Personally I would not include throwing an exception in that definition.
Rich Thompson
| Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>
04/16/2003 05:59 PM
|
To:
cc:
wsrp-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
Re: [wsrp-conformance] [AS096] |
But what does fail mean? Not crash? I suspect Andre
may mean that fail means throws an exception which should certainly be
valid in this situation. Are you suggesting that an exception isn't
a reasonable fallback?
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
Because the conformance statement says the Producer needs to have a reasonable
fallback.
Rich Thompson
Why should they not be allowed to fail? The portlet may not be able to
render any content if it can not work out who / what the user is?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 15 April 2003 02:46
To: wsrp-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-conformance] [AS096]
Old:
Producers shall be prepared for Consumer invocations that do not specify
any user category.
New:
Invocations of Producer operations shall not fail just because the Consumer
did not specify any user categories.
Rich Thompson
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]