OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp-wsia message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: [wsrp-wsia] Automatic resolve


The following issues were automatically resolved (resolution date came, and nobody objected!):
(if the following rich text was received jumbled in some mail clients/servers, I attached a file containing simple text):
 
20 Resolved interface Technical Gil Tayar 22-Oct-2002 Is entityState (a persistent state) necessary for v1?
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/11.5/EntityContext Type
  Description: -
          Resolution: Yes. It is required for Consumer-stored entity state
22 Resolved interface Technical Alan Kropp 22-Oct-2002 What is the rationale behind returning successfully released handles?
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/5.4 - releaseHandles
  Description: What is the rationale behind returning successfully released handles? I believe the thinking is that the producer can tell the consumer of any dependent entities that have been released.  But are there actually any cases where the consumer doesn't know what the dependent entities are?  If not, it seems like the method should instead throw an exception containing handles that have _failed_ to be released.   This seems like a more straightforward way of letting the Consumer handle errors.
Andre Kramer: I agree.]
          Resolution: releaseHandles was split into two operations, both which return either void or a fault
21 Tentative Resolve interface Editorial Rich Thompson 31-Oct-2002 More verbiage on why no release on initEnvironment
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/5.3 - initEnvironment
  Description: Need verbiage about why no release is needed, how timeout/need to reinitialize are signaled, etc.
          Resolution: Verbiage around usage of initEnvironment() has been added:
  If  the  Producer's  metadata has set the doInitEnvironment flag to true,
  then  the  Consumer  MUST  invoke  initEnvironment() once for the groupID
  prior  to invoking getMarkup() for this End-User for any entity using the
  same  groupID.  The  Consumer  MAY invoke initEnvironment() concurrently,
  each with a different groupID, for the interactions with the End-User. If
  at     any     time    the    Producer    throws    a    fault    message
  ("WSRP.Interface.InvalidEnvironment") indicating the environment for this
  groupID with this End-User has been invalidated at the Producer, then the
  Consumer  MUST again invoke initEnvironment() for this groupID and SHOULD
  then reprocess the invocation that caused the fault message to be thrown.

This fault message is in the table in section 14. That section briefly
discusses that WSDL fault codes are strings with '.' delimited hierarchies
for the messages. All of ours start with 'WSRP', currently there are two
second level strings ('Security' and 'Interface').
23 Tentative Resolve interface Technical Alejandro Abdelnur 31-Oct-2002 Adding clientParameters to getMarkup operation
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6 - markup related/getMarkup
  Description: Add clientParameters to getMarkup? Could help when performInteraction() is not being used.
          Resolution: MarkupParams has this as a field named requestParameters in v0.8
25 Resolved interface Technical Andre Kramer 15-Oct-2002 Could this be renamed markupRequest? Likewise for interactionContext
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6 - markup related/getMarkup
  Description: Could this be renamed markupRequest? Likewise for interactionContext
          Resolution: These two structures have been renamed MarkupParams and
InteractionParams.
27 Resolved interface Editorial Rich Thompson 15-Oct-2002 Missing mapping of statefulness needs to the operations
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.2 - Stateful entity scenarios
  Description: well the mapping is missing, but the intent is here
          Resolution: Tables to provide the mapping for the relevant data fields have been
added.
28 Resolved interface Technical Alan Kropp 15-Oct-2002 CONFIG mode is optional under JSR-168
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.3.4 - CONFIG mode
  Description: -
          Resolution: Description of CONFIG mode has been added.
29 Resolved interface Technical Alan Kropp 15-Oct-2002 DESIGN mode has no equivalent under JSR-168
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.3.5 - DESIGN mode
  Description: -
          Resolution: DESIGN mode has been deleted ... could not come up with a good
description for it.
30 Resolved interface Technical Alan Kropp 15-Oct-2002 PREVIEW mode has no equivalent under JSR-168
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.3.4 - PREVIEW mode
  Description: -
          Resolution: Description of PREVIEW mode has been added.
31 Resolved interface Technical Carsten Leue 15-Oct-2002 MINIMIZED state does not necessarily mean no markup
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.4.1 - MINIMIZED window state
  Description: Needed to modify this passage because in some circumstances the portlet might need to write into the output stream even if minimized. This is e.g. the case for Portlets rendering VoiceXML or for portlets that want to display some sort of status bar in minimized mode.
          Resolution:  When  the window state is VIEW_MINIMIZED, the entity SHOULD render itself
using  minimal  space. The entity SHOULD render no visible markup in this
case,  but  is  free  to  include  non-visible data such as javascript or
hidden  forms. The Consumer MUST invoke the getMarkup() operation for the
VIEW_MINIMIZED  state  just  as for all other window states. The Consumer
MAY render the title, controls and decorations related to the entity.
I  would note that Andre suggested that some Consumers may want to show a
small  image  when  the entity is minimized ... I would suggest that this
not  pollute  these semantics, but that it would be a custom window state
of the flavor 'Iconized'.
32 Resolved interface Technical Rich Thompson 22-Oct-2002 Do property operations need to be included in base?
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/Chapter 7 - introduction
  Description: The following need further discussion as to whether they are to be included in the base porttype of this specification
          Resolution: Yes. The F2F declared that persistent properties for entity configuration are to be included in v1.0.
33 Resolved interface Technical Andre Kramer 15-Oct-2002 propertyDescription structure missing from chapter 11
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/Chapter 7 - getPropertyDescription
  Description: -
          Resolution: PropertyDescription is now section 6.1.10
34 Resolved interface Technical Alejandro Abdelnur 15-Oct-2002 Do we want to define how an entity sends a title to the portal?
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/Chapter 9 - Introduction
  Description: -
          Resolution: Yes. We do. We added a "preferredTitle" field in the markupResponse. The resolution should wait until JSR168 syncs with this proposal (or rejects it!)
39 Resolved markup Minor Editorial Rich Thompson 15-Oct-2002 Does the example help to understand relationship between producer and consumer URL rewriting?
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/9.2.3  - relationship between consumer and producer writing
  Description: -
          Resolution: This portion was rewritten
40 Resolved markup Minor Editorial Andre Kramer 15-Oct-2002 Move URL Writing Semantics earlier
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/9.2.5  - URL Writing Semantis
  Description: -
          Resolution: Semantics regarding which party does the URL writing has moved into the intro section of the discussion.
44 Resolved interface Technical Gil Tayar 15-Oct-2002 Rename "expires" to "sessionExpires" in ResponseContext
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/11.6 - RequestTypes/ResponseContext
  Description: -
          Resolution: Structure and field have been renamed to reflect change to refHandle proposal
49 Resolved meta Technical Carsten Leue 22-Oct-2002 Problem in the the use of multiple description records that derive from each other
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/11.11 - Description Types/introduction
  Description: The getDescription method's signature returns a Description object. Normal Stubs that are generated on the basis of the WSRP WSDL will only serialize the Description part even if the underlying object is in fact a Service or EntityDescription. We need to merge all information or establish multiple getDescription signatures
          Resolution: getDescription was split into two functions. See all I#12 and I#13
51 Tentative Resolve meta Technical Carsten Leue 31-Oct-2002 Define a naming schema how WSRP binding tModel are named
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/13.3 - finding services in UDDI
  Description: We should define a naming schema how WSRP binding tModel a named to allow an easy search. This schema could be a hierachic schema like: "wsrp.binding.soaprpc", "wsrp.binding.dime", "wsrp.binding.mime"
          Resolution: SPEC_VERSION_FACTOR_WSDLTYPE_TYPESPECIFIC
Where:
 - SPEC = 'WSRP'
 - VERSION = v1 (this time)
 - FACTOR is one of 'Markup', 'ServiceDescription', 'Registration' or
'EntityManagement' (may yet get tweaked)
 - WSDLTYPE is one of 'PortType', 'Binding' or 'Service'
 - TYPESPECIFIC currently includes 'SOAP'
52 Resolved introduction Editorial Rich Thompson 15-Oct-2002 How should we organize use cases
  Date Added: 4-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/Appendix A - Use cases/introduction
  Description: The following are WSRP use cases ... do we want to name the appendix that and have a separate one for WSIA use cases? Include subsections here for WSIA use cases? Other options?
Rich: Intention is to hyperlink to Use cases from the Introduction section.
          Resolution: hyperlink to Use cases from the Introduction section.
54 Resolved interface Technical Sasha Aickin 22-Oct-2002 WSRP session to consumer - end user session
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description: Shall we specify how WSAR sessions map to consumer - end user sessions ?
Proposal from Gil: Specify "WSRP session between consumer and producer maps to end user session of the consumer" - what end user session means depends on the consumer.
          Resolution: Gil's proposal was accepted
55 Resolved registration Technical ? 22-Oct-2002 Shall we have a registerConsumer operation in the 1.0 spec or out of band ?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description: Shall we have an registerConsumer function in the specification ? Or shall we leave it as an out of band operation that we just assume to result in an opaque identifier ? In the latter case, releaseHandle on consumerRegistration handles would also go away.
          Resolution: While out of band is allowed, in band registration for v1.0 was decided to be included.
58   entity mgmt Technical ? 22-Oct-2002 Should only POEs be published, only service or both
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description:  
          Resolution: Remove UDDI definitions from spec, focus initial efforts on the
information model that should be published to a directory for a Producer.
60 Resolved user info Technical Michael Freedman 22-Oct-2002 Presentation on WS-Security
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description: Its been proposed we rely on WS-security for carrying our user/role information.  It would be useful to have a presentation that describes WS-security, what it covers, and how we can use it to  solve our problems.  We can then discuss the benefits/detractions ofrelying on it vs. defining some of our own concepts.
          Resolution: A presentation did in fact occur in the September F2F.
61 Resolved interface Technical Michael Freedman 22-Oct-2002 Interface Factoring
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description: We need to decide discuss how many interface factors we will define.  We also need to discuss which one's will be required to be WSRP compliant.   Fro example: If we decide that we define a service method to discover the interfaces supported by the service I would suggest this be separated from getDescription -- as its signature will have to be immutable across all [future] factors.  Also, we need to understand if there will be "simpler" wsia factors and discuss whether they must be supported by WSRP consumers.  Finally, we should discuss whether the WSRP required factor should only contain WSRP [1.0] function -- i.e. we have been discussing extended WSIA function [such as set transient props] that we may choose to put into an extended not required factor.  Outside of the design issues above we also need to  close the discussion on whether there are implementation details that affect factoring -- i.e. running multiple ports within the same session.
          Resolution: F2F decided to factor the interface using 4 factors. V0.7 reflects this factoring
62 Resolved entity mgmt Technical Michael Freedman 22-Oct-2002 Entity Management
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description: We still don't have a clear articulation of how entities are managed particularly when the management occurs across both the consumer and the producer.  I.e. there is no clear definition of how a consumer controls the creation of a new entity when the producer provides the EDIT UI.  Also, though we made the simplifying decision at the last F2F that we won't define hierarchical relationships between entities [such things would have to be maintained by the consumer], as Alan has pointed out previously, this is too restrictive.  Basically, the architecture doesn't seem to support a hierarchical environment if both the consumer and producer are involved with managing entities [via the EDIT screen].  This seems way to restrictive and makes EDIT mode fairly useless.  If this is the case we should toss the support or clarify how it can be used to solve these problems.
          Resolution: Process outlined in v0.7 based on September F2F decisions
64 Resolved customization Technical Michael Freedman 22-Oct-2002 Preference management negotiation
  Date Added:  
  Document Section:  
  Description: We need to discuss what permutations we want to support for editing/storing entities [customizations].  I.e. Consumer UI + Consumer store, Consumer UI + producer store, Producer UI + Producer store, Producer UI  + Consumer store.  Do we support all or only some?  What is the consumer required to support?  What is the  Producer required to support?  If there is overlap, how does the negotiation get settled?
          Resolution: All permutations were approved. Persistent state only produced by
entity. In the case of Consumer UI gathering property updates, the
setEntityProperties() sets the entity's state regardless of where it is
stored.
65 Resolved interface Technical Michael Freedman 22-Oct-2002 JSR synchronization
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description: Maybe either Alejandro or Stefan Heper can prepare/give a presentation on where the JSR stands coming out of its F2F and more specifically, what is needed by WSRP to support the JSRs current semantics.  Coming out of the JSR there is a need to pass more IDs to the portlet (portlet window ID).  And there is a need to define that these IDs are invariant once they come into existence -- except for the group session ID which is invariant per lifetime of the session.  We can also discuss whether the JSRs extensibility [mapping] should find its way into WSRP.  There is also a need to discuss naming such as the names/prefix we use in the standard style sheet as JSR would like to leverage this. [Maybe we can use a generic prefix like: "fragment:"].
          Resolution: A presentation was in fact...presented at the September F2F
68 Tentative Resolve interface Technical Carsten Leue 31-Oct-2002 Do we need initenvironment ?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description:  
          Resolution: Yes. It is needed. See I#18
71 Resolved interface Technical Thomas Schaeck 15-Oct-2002 What's the difference between DESIGN MODE and CONFIG MODE ?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description:  
  Resolution date:
          Resolution: DESIGN mode has been deleted ... could not come up with a good
description for it.
72 Resolved markup Technical Carsten Leue 15-Oct-2002 Markup - Can Links directly point to getMarkup ?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description:  
          Resolution: Yes. See section 9.2.1.6.2
73 Resolved interface Editorial Sasha Aickin 15-Oct-2002 userContext - optional or mandatory mixup in text
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/4
  Description: In the description for userContext in getDescription, we say: "Since this operation does not receive any reference to a possible session, the userContext MUST be passed on each invocation."  This sentence implies to me that the other arguments to getDescription are all optional (since they don't say that they MUST be passed), but I had sort of assumed that an argument was required unless specifically noted.  Which is correct?
          Resolution: Rewritten as part of splitting getDescription() into 2 operations.
75 Resolved registration Minor Technical Sasha Aickin 15-Oct-2002 How to ensure consumerName is unique?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/11.3
  Description: For registrationData, section 11 says that consumerName should be globally unique.  How do we want to suggest assigning a name in a globally unique way?
          Resolution: Draft v0.7 eliminates requirement statement, encourages uniqueness of the consumerName and suggests the Consumer's URL as such a name.
76 Resolved registration Minor Technical Sasha Aickin 22-Oct-2002 Why is the fact that Consumer supports transcoding surfaced in the spec?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/11.3
  Description: For registrationData, section 11 says that characterSetConversion indicates if the Consumer intends to convert character sets.  Why is this surfaced in the spec?
          Resolution: characterSetConversion removed from meta-data
77 Resolved interface Technical Sasha Aickin 22-Oct-2002 specific semantics of sendPublishedState
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section:  
  Description: consumerContext's member sendPublishedState seems useful on some calls (like cloneEntity) but not on others (like registerConsumer).  Further, the effects of the sendPublishedState flag are only explicitly described in the spec for cloneEntity and setProperties.  I think we should describe what sendPublishedState does for each call, and we should probably take it out of the signatures of several of the methods.
          Resolution: sendPublishedState removed from meta-data
78 Resolved interface Editorial Sasha Aickin 15-Oct-2002 should we specify storage of consumerHandle?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/5.1 - registerConsumer
  Description: In section 5.1, we say:  "The Consumer SHOULD persistently store the consumerContext. If the Consumer cannot persist the context, it must attempt to release the consumerHandle using the releaseHandles() method when exiting the current conversation."  I think it makes more sense not to try to commit to a notion of persistence on the Consumer but instead to say: "The Consumer MUST use releaseHandles() on every consumerContext that is returned as a result of registerConsumer()."  This is the only requirement that the spec cares about; from the spec's perspective it doesn't matter how the consumer handle is stored.  Along the same lines, I think that the following text in the description of cloneEntity: "The handle of the new ConsumerConfiguredEntity must be persisted by the Consumer and released when it is no longer needed. If the Consumer is unable to persist the entity it must release it before the conversation ends." should be changed to: "The handle of the new ConsumerConfiguredEntity MUST be released when it is no longer needed."
          Resolution: Language was updated to eliminate discussion concerning whether or not
he Consumer persists handles to focus on releasing them at the end of their
lifecycle management. Draft v0.7 incorporates the suggestion to remove language about
different Consumer implementation choices.
79 Resolved interface Technical Sasha Aickin 15-Oct-2002 Why return consumerHandle in modifyConsumer's consumerContext?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/5.1
  Description: In section 5.1 in the description of modifyConsumer, we say:  "A consumerContext is returned since the Producer MAY store state for this registration in this structure for the Consumer to supply on future invocations. The Producer MUST NOT modify the consumerHandle contained within this data structure."  If the Producer MUST NOT modify the consumerHandle, then why are we even letting the Producer return a handle at all?  If the only thing the Producer can change is the consumerState, I think that should be the only thing the operation returns.  As it is, the operation's signature is confusing; I could easily see a Producer implementation mistakenly returning a new consumerHandle or a Consumer implementation mistakenly accepting a returned consumerHandle.
  Resolution date:
          Resolution: New structure (RegistrationCore) introduced to eliminate possibility of this error.
80 Resolved entity mgmt Technical Sasha Aickin 15-Oct-2002 cloneEntity and modification of properties - in same call?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/5.2/cloneEntity
  Description: Why does cloneEntity take in an array of properties both in the entityContext argument and in the entityProperties argument?  For that matter, why does cloneEntity allow the user to modify properties at all?  Wouldn't it be simpler in the spec to just call cloneEntity and modifyEntity to achieve the same goal?
          Resolution: This optimization has been eliminated. Draft v0.7 eliminates this piggybacked porperties parameter as
per F2F decision.
83 Resolved interface Minor Editorial Sasha Aickin 22-Oct-2002 Is markupType a MIME type?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.1
  Description: Do we expect the markupType argument to getMarkup() to be a MIME type?  If so, we should explicitly state that.
  Resolution date: 22-Oct-2002
          Resolution: markupType MUST be a MIME type
84 Tentative Resolve interface Minor Technical Sasha Aickin 31-Oct-2002 More than a boolen in secureClientCommunication
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.1
  Description: The argument secureClientCommunications to getMarkup() seems to me to demand more than a boolean.  It would be nice (with some sort of extensible string) to indicate what level of security is being used with the client, what kind of network is being used, etc.
JSR168 defines (leveraging the Servlet specification) this 2 pieces of information. For authentication type defines 4 constants: BASIC, CLIENT_CERT, DIGEST and FORM, modeled after authentication mechanisms commonly used with HTTP.
the isSecure attribute is a boolean indicating if the communication between the client and the consumer is secure or not (i.e.: HTTPS). Note that a client-consumer communication can be authenticated but not secure and vice versa. Also note that JSR168 explicitely says that this information s between the client (user agent) and the portal.
          Resolution: Add a string clientAuthType. Describe both this and secureClientCommunications as carrying the End-User to server connection information only regardless of the number of connections between the End-User and the Producer.
86 Tentative Resolve interface Technical Sasha Aickin 31-Oct-2002 Detailed definition of transportHeaders lacking
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.1
  Description: The description of the transportHeaders argument to getMarkup is not as full as I would like.  Specifically, I think it should mention:  (1) if we means "last-hop" headers or "first-hop" headers.  This becomes interesting in the case of a portal A re-serving portlets up as WSRP services to be consumed by portal B, which in turn is embedding them in a user's page.  Should the transportHeaders argument have the headers from the first straight HTTP hop from the user to portal B or the HTTP (or SOAP?) headers in the hop from portal B to portal A?  (2) should hop-by-hop HTTP headers be taken out?  what about headers that could compromise the security of the serving portal (like Cookie or Authorization)?
          Resolution: requestMetadata', as the field is now called, is described as a combination of information either from the initial client transport layer or data stores the Consumer manages and is choosing to pass to the Producer.
87 Resolved interface Minor Technical Sasha Aickin 22-Oct-2002 Modes as navigation state vs. Modes as another state of the Entity
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/6.3
  Description: I'm confused about the use of modes.  As written right now, the Consumer passes the mode to the Producer on calls to getMarkup and performInteraction.  I think the spec intends that a portlet is always considered to be in one of the possible modes, but I don't think that the Consumer can always know the mode.  For example, say the user clicks "Edit" in the portal and the Consumer calls getMarkup with the EDIT mode.  Now, the user clicks a link in the page.  How does the Consumer know if the Producer transitions back to VIEW mode or not?  It seems to me that we should think of things like EDIT and CONFIG as predefined resources that the Producer can serve up.  There will be only one "page" each that corresponds to EDIT, CONFIG, PREVIEW, etc., and not all calls to getMarkup should have a mode.  Does this make sense to folks?
          Resolution: It was decided in the September F2F that Mode is a piece of state related to the Consumer's viewer, not
the entity's state
88 Resolved markup Minor Editorial Sasha Aickin 15-Oct-2002 Producer URL Writing section is confusing
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/9
  Description: I haven't followed the Markup Committee very closely, and I found the section on both Producer & Consumer URL Writing confusing.  The questions I have are:
 -- What is the exact syntax of a template for Producer URL Writing?  I think it would be very useful to have a BNF grammar here to make sure that we all agree what the syntax is.  Is the following a correct interpretation of the spec?
 WSIAProducerURLTemplate = (Text* ReplacementToken*)*
 Text = <any UNICODE character except '{' and '}'>
 ReplacementToken = '{' ParameterName '}'
 ParameterName = 'sessionID' |
   'navigationalState' |
   'clientParameters'

          Resolution: First pass at a BNF-like notation added
89 Resolved markup Minor Editorial Sasha Aickin 15-Oct-2002 Consumer URL Writing section is confusing
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/9
  Description:  -- Similarly, is the following a correct BNF for Consumer URL Writing?
 WSIAConsumerURLTemplate = ConsumerURLBeginToken NameValuePairList ConsumerURLEndToken
 ConsumerURLBeginToken = 'wsia:QXqKYZJVUWj7G?'
 ConsumerURLEndToken = '/wsia:QXqKYZJVUWj7G'
 NameValuePairList = NameValuePair ('&' NameValuePair)*
 NameValuePair = NavigationalStateNameValuePair |
    SessionIDNameValuePair |
    EntityModeNameValuePair |
    WindowStateNameValuePair |
    URLNameValuePair |
    TokenNameValuePair |
    URLTypeNameValuePair |
    ConsumerResourceTypeNameValuePair
    SecureURLNameValuePair |
    RewriteResourceNameValuePair NavigationalStateNameValuePair = 'wsia:navigationalState' '=' Value
 SessionIDNameValuePair = 'wsia:sessionID' '=' Value
 EntityModeNameValuePair = 'wsia:entityMode' '=' EntityModeValue
 WindowStateNameValuePair = 'wsia:windowState' '=' WindowStateValue
 URLNameValuePair = 'wsia:url' '=' URI
 TokenNameValuePair = 'wsia:token' '=' Value
 URLTypeNameValuePair = 'wsia:urlType' '=' URLTypeValue
 ConsumerResourceTypeNameValuePair = 'wsia:consumerResourceType' '=' ConsumerResourceValue
 SecureURLNameValuePair = 'wsia:secureURL' '=' BooleanValue
 RewriteResourceNameValuePair= 'wsia:rewriteResource' '=' BooleanValue

 URLTypeValue = 'Action' | 'Render' | 'Resource' | 'Namespace' | 'ConsumerResource'
 EntityModeValue = 'EDIT' | 'VIEW' | 'CONFIG' | 'HELP' | 'PREVIEW' | Value
 WindowStateValue = 'MINIMIZED' | 'MAXIMIZED' | 'NORMAL'
 ConsumerResourceValue = 'OK_ICON' | 'OK_TEXT' | 'CANCEL_ICON' | 'CANCEL_TEXT' | 'INFO_ICON' | 'INFO_TEXT' | 'WARNING_ICON' | 'QUESTION_ICON'
 BooleanValue = 'true' | 'false'
 Value = <any text without substring '/wsia:QXqKYZJVUWj7G' or 'wsia:QXqKYZJVUWj7G?'>
          Resolution: First pass at a BNF-like notation added
90 Tentative Resolve interface Minor Technical Sasha Aickin 7-Nov-2002 When are Producer URL writing templates sent?
  Date Added: 10-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/9
  Description: Finally, exactly what parameters of which calls in the interface are Producer URL writing templates sent on?  I think we should mention that in the Consumer URL Writing section.
          Resolution: Section 9.2.2 of the v0.8 draft calls out that these
are passed on the getMarkup() invocation though we may consider an optimization may cause
them be only sent once per session.
95 Resolved entity mgmt Technical Rich Thompson 22-Oct-2002 destroyEntities() & refHandles
  Date Added: 19-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/5.2
  Description: At the F2F we separated releasedHandles() into 2 operations, one of which
is destroyEntities(). We also began the exploration of what the signatures
would look like with a unified refHandle that encode both entityHandle and
sessionID. What semantics do we want to define for a refHandle being passed
to destroyEntities()? What are the semantics for destroying entities that
have active sessions on them?
          Resolution: Draft v0.7 does not allow refHandles to be passed to
destroyEntities() as the semantics are to destroy the persistent entity,
not a runtime refinement of it.
98 Tentative Resolve customization Minor Technical Ravi Konuru 31-Oct-2002 Entity property customization and return values
  Date Added: 23-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/7 - published state interfaces
  Description: Should methods return changed properties (side-effects) ? E.g Should
setProperties call on certain properties allowed to return properties and
values more than those specified?
          Resolution: It was the consensus in the F2F that the answer is "No".
99 Tentative Resolve interface Minor Technical Ravi Konuru 31-Oct-2002 Entity property customization and user context
  Date Added: 23-Sep-2002
  Document Section: Interfaces/7 - published state interfaces
  Description: The current signature of setProperties and getPropeties takes a usercontext
as an argument implying that the properties returned by an entity may be
dependent on the user. This in turn implies that an entity is potentially
maintaining multiple property models, one per user. Such a concept seems to
conflict with the notion that an entity exposes a single set of persistent
properties for configuration.
          Resolution: Yes.There are multiple property models per user
103 Resolved interface Minor Technical Yossi Tamari 16-Oct-2002 In vendor extensibility "object any" should be an array
 
Gil Tayar
WebCollage
 
20	22-Oct-2002	Is entityState (a persistent state) necessary for v1?
22	22-Oct-2002	What is the rationale behind returning successfully released handles?
25	15-Oct-2002	Could this be renamed markupRequest? Likewise for interactionContext
27	15-Oct-2002	Missing mapping of statefulness needs to the operations
28	15-Oct-2002	CONFIG mode is optional under JSR-168
29	15-Oct-2002	DESIGN mode has no equivalent under JSR-168
30	15-Oct-2002	PREVIEW mode has no equivalent under JSR-168
31	15-Oct-2002	MINIMIZED state does not necessarily mean no markup
32	22-Oct-2002	Do property operations need to be included in base?
33	15-Oct-2002	propertyDescription structure missing from chapter 11
34	15-Oct-2002	Do we want to define how an entity sends a title to the portal?
39	15-Oct-2002	Does the example help to understand relationship between producer and consumer URL rewriting?
40	15-Oct-2002	Move URL Writing Semantics earlier
44	15-Oct-2002	Rename "expires" to "sessionExpires" in ResponseContext
49	22-Oct-2002	Problem in the the use of multiple description records that derive from each other
52	15-Oct-2002	How should we organize use cases
54	22-Oct-2002	WSRP session to consumer – end user session
55	22-Oct-2002	Shall we have a registerConsumer operation in the 1.0 spec or out of band ?
60	22-Oct-2002	Presentation on WS-Security
61	22-Oct-2002	Interface Factoring
62	22-Oct-2002	Entity Management
64	22-Oct-2002	Preference management negotiation
65	22-Oct-2002	JSR synchronization
71	15-Oct-2002	What's the difference between DESIGN MODE and CONFIG MODE ?
72	15-Oct-2002	Markup - Can Links directly point to getMarkup ?
73	15-Oct-2002	userContext - optional or mandatory mixup in text
75	15-Oct-2002	How to ensure consumerName is unique?
76	22-Oct-2002	Why is the fact that Consumer supports transcoding surfaced in the spec?
77	22-Oct-2002	specific semantics of sendPublishedState
78	15-Oct-2002	should we specify storage of consumerHandle?
79	15-Oct-2002	Why return consumerHandle in modifyConsumer's consumerContext?
80	15-Oct-2002	cloneEntity and modification of properties - in same call?
83	22-Oct-2002	Is markupType a MIME type?
87	22-Oct-2002	Modes as navigation state vs. Modes as another state of the Entity
88	15-Oct-2002	Producer URL Writing section is confusing
89	15-Oct-2002	Consumer URL Writing section is confusing
95	22-Oct-2002	destroyEntities() & refHandles
103	16-Oct-2002	In vendor extensibility "object any" should be an array


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC