Re: [wsrp-wsia] [change request #187] Cacheability and perform*Interaction

[Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>]

But, Alan, an action isn't cacheable.  Why is there any ambiguity about whether
actions propogate to the portlet?  Are you concerned that readers will get
confused now that we have added the capability for an action to be optimized
by returning markup?  I would be surprised by this, but if enough folks think
action semantics are unclear a few words stating that "actions aren't cacheable
and hence portlets will always receive them" should be sufficient.

As for clarifying how the Consumer manages the cache -- I personally think
its clear enough however if folks think some clarifying words should be added
then fine as long as the clarifying words define the semantics that have
already been agreed on.  I.e. we currently define no semantics for how an
action impacts how a Consumer manages the cache. I.e. the impacts of actions
on how the consumer manages the cache is exactly what we voted to defer to
after 1.0.
    -Mike-

Kropp, Alan wrote:
> An important objective of this change request is the point that actions must
> propagate to the portlet, regardless of the existence of unexpired cached
> content.  Is that not a requirement of the JSR?  Would not its absence from
> WSRP be a serious problem for WSRP-JSR synchronization on interaction
> processing?
>
> I fail to see how this somehow resurrects the invalidation question, but I'd
> gladly revisit the wording if folks think this is the implication.  It is
> definitely not my intent.  Read carefully, either my or Rich's text says
> absolutely nothing about the Producer telling the Consumer to invalidate its
> cache.  The text is entirely focused on directing how the Consumer manages
> the cache when processing an action.  I do not agree that the spec already
> gives clarity on this point, and feel its explicit mention, in the section
> on action processing, lends the clarity I feel is missing.
>
> Alan
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Freedman [mailto:Michael.Freedman@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 11:01 AM
> To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsrp-wsia] [change request #187] Cacheability and
> perform*Interaction
>
>
> I strongly object to this change request and ask that it be withdrawn. 
>  We have already discussed and rejected twice now adding invalidation 
> semantics in 1.0.  This change request introduces no new technical issue 
> to challenge the prior discussions and therefore should not be 
> considered.  We should stand by the rules we have established.
>
> To head off arguments that it introduces something new ... the change 
> request asks for two things:  first to clarify whether actions are 
> cacheable, and second how an action affects the cache for subsequent 
> getMarkups.  Is there really any confusion concerning whether actions 
> are cacheable?  The specification defines no provisions for such 
> behavior, only markup.  Why do we need to clarify something that is 
> clearly not supported by the protocol?  As for how actions affect the 
> cache -- this is precisely the discussion we have had twice prior to 
> this change request -- and have twice prior voted to not define 
> invalidation caching in 1.0.
>     -Mike-
>
> Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> > Document: Spec
> > Section: 6.3.x
> > Page/Line: 39/9
> > Requested by: Alan Kropp
> > Old text: [none]
> > Proposed text: [new section: 6.3.4? Cache Discard] The Consumer MUST 
> > always propagate an interaction to the portlet. If there is a 
> > perUser-scoped cache for this end-user, as a result of a prior interaction 
> > with this portlet, the Consumer MUST NOT rely on the contents of this 
> > cache, even if its expiration time indicates it is still valid. The reason 
> > for this is the interaction will very likely change the portlet's state, 
> > and therefore must not be diverted by the Consumer in favor of hitting its 
> > cache. The Consumer COULD send the validation token from the prior 
> > interaction's CacheControl in the interaction request, and in the event 
> > the portlet determines that the state change does not invalidate the 
> > cached content, will indicate that the Consumer may use the cached 
> > content, using the response mechanism described in the section on Caching. 
> >
> >
> > Reasoning: Make conformance statement wrt caching and interactions.  I 
> > believe this aligns us with JSR requirement that actions always propagate 
> > to the portlet.
> >
> > [RT] While this is close to what we have discussed (& rejected) about 
> > interactions invalidating the cache, I think there is value to explicitly 
> > having the spec say something in this area. 
> >
> > Alternate suggestion: [new section: 6.3.4 User Interactions and Caching] 
> > The Consumer MUST always propagate End-User interactions to the Producer. 
> > If available, the Consumer SHOULD send the validateTag corresponding to 
> > the MarkupParms supplied to the interaction invocation. If the Portlet 
> > determines that the interaction does not invalidate the cached content, 
> > will indicate that the Consumer can use the cached content via the 
> > useCachedMarkup flag of a returned MarkupContext structure. 
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >  
> >
> >   
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>