[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [wsrp-wsia] Automatic resolve
| 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 | |||||