[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp][interfaces] separate administration interface
Alejandro - wouldn't the administraton ( = modification of configuration
data) be done by editing the template and the condifuration by editing the
portlet instance? In this case the would not be a need for a separate
administration interface as the edit mode of the template already supplies
one. The advantage is a consistent handling of confiuration/administration
by simple switiching to the edit mode of the corresponding entity.
Best regards
Carsten Leue
-------
Dr. Carsten Leue
Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany
Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Alejandro |
| | Abdelnur |
| | <alejandro.abdeln|
| | ur@sun.com> |
| | |
| | 06/04/2002 04:35 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | Alejandro |
| | Abdelnur |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: Angel Luis Diaz/Watson/IBM@IBMUS |
| cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org |
| Subject: Re: [wsrp][interfaces] separate administration interface |
| |
| |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Angel,
Assuming that you have a common API to code portlets, then you'll be able
to deploy these portlets in any producer that support this common API.
Then, a portlet could execute all the regular user functions run in any
compliant producer, but for administration tasks the portlet would have to
be aware of the configuration data model of the producer. Unless all these
producers share a similar configuration data model for storing
configuration, a portlet would only be able to do administration in the
producer it has been coded against (or another with a similar configuration
data model).
As an example of a different configuration data model than then one being
used used (templates) during the WSRP-TC discussions consider the
following: When a user selects a portlet and an instance is created the
initial configuration values for the portlet are taken from default values
associated with organization roles that are merged into a default set. So
based on the user roles the default values will be synthesized.
Regards.
Alejandro
Angel Luis Diaz wrote:
I have other concerns regarding portability of portlets across
portlet
containers but this is outside of the scope of WSRP.
I am curious! What are those concerns?
Best regards,
Angel
Angel Luis Diaz, Ph.D
Senior Manager, Next Generation eXperience Frameworks
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
aldiaz@us.ibm.com
(914) 784-7388 / (914) 441-7594
Alejandro Abdelnur <alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com> on 06/03/2002
01:22:49 PM
To: jbroberg@silverstream.com
cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp][interfaces] separate administration interface
Jeff,
In both cases, Personalization and Administration, I'm referring to
the
customization and personalization capabilities that a portlet
exposes.
As it has been discussed so far, Administration is just a special
case of
Personalization where the user, because he/she has an administrator
role,
can set configuration data at template level and because of his/her
role
can see/touch more configuration parameters.
I see Personalization done through the portlet (i.e.: when the user
clicks
the EDIT button) as the user has the portlet in his/her portal page.
The
portlet itself knows how to persist the configuration data that is
meant
for a specific user, the one making the customization. Based on the
user's
roles more or less configuration parameters are exposed to the user.
The main problems I see by doing Administration in the same way as
Personalization are:
* An administrator has to set the portlet template in a portal page
in
order to configure it.
* There is no provision, neither metadata, to enable administration
through
other means such as a command line tool or a configuration console.
The
Administration has to be done exclusively through the portal.
I'll prepare a list of requirements on this matter and I'll send it
to the
alias.
I have other concerns regarding portability of portlets across
portlet
containers but this is outside of the scope of WSRP.
Regards.
Alejandro
Jeff Broberg wrote:
I am alittle confused. If a portlet wanted to expose some
administration
capabilities such as allowing parameters to be modified for
personallization
wouldnt they expose an "Administration" action that would then be
shown to
the appropriate users based on their roles. Or is the type of
administration that you are talking about different from the
customization/personalization capabilities that a portlet exposes ?
jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:58 PM
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.orgSubject: [wsrp][interfaces] separate
administration interface
I have some concerns on the idea of using the usage interface for
doing
administration tasks on a portlet.
I think we should have a separate administration interface. And,
probably, some metadata (provided by the portlet) describing how the
portlet should be administered.
I'm re-posting a message I've sent last week, as it was a reply to
another email, because of the subject, some of you may have
overlooked
it. Mike and Eilon replied to it, so you may want to check the thread
in
the archives.
Thanks and regards.
Alejandro
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [wsrp][interfaces]: Portal Usage Scenario
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:57:54 -0700
From: Alejandro Abdelnur <alejandro.abdelnur@Sun.COM>Organization:
Sun
Microsystems, Inc
To: "Tamari, Yossi" <yossi.tamari@sapportals.com>CC: "'Thomas
Schaeck'"
<SCHAECK@de.ibm.com>, wsrp@lists.oasis-open.orgReferences:
<5199D0E7CA63D511BB6F0008C75DAD1403653228@dbwdfx2e.wdf.sap-ag.de>
Tamari,
Yossi wrote:
Hi Thomas,
I don't think that the fact the portal can set the portlet's
properties
means that there can be no plug-and-play.
The Portlet can advertise its properties and their type (XML-Schema
like)
in
its meta-data, and the portal can use this meta-data to automatically
display a set-properties page. While this page can not be as
customized as
the portlet generated page, it has the advantage of creating a
uniform
set-properties look and feel throughout the portal.
I'm just saying both options have their merits, and we should regard
both.
Yossi.
I agree with Yossi. We should investigate/consider other
alternatives.
This is somehow related to an issue I've brought up in the
WSRP/security
conf call last week about "...separation of interfaces and roles for
administrative vs. non-administrative usage. ..."
I see some key problems on the approach we are heading to, where we
do
not have a separate administration interface from the regular usage
interface. Administration and personalization are very different
beasts.
Using a definition from a colleague, personalization of a component
is
when a user customizes the behavior of the component for himself;
while
administration is when a user customizes the behavior of the
component
for one (other than her) or more users.
I see personalization being done through the usage interface, as most
portal frameworks -if not all- do it today.
I see as a possibility to do administration of portlets through
portlets, not the same portlet but a special administration portlet
provided by the WSRP service.
I have problems seeing administration functionality being done
through
the usage interface of the same portlet is to be administered.
Personalization is about a given portlet instance for a given user.
Administration may have to deal with roles, groups, templates, etc.
In my opinion, it will be very hard to implement a portlet to do this
administration unless the portlet is knowledgeable of the WSRP
service
configuration data model. A portlet knows about the business logic it
produces presentation logic for. A portlet knows about the
configuration/personalization parameters it needs. But a portlet does
not necessary know how the container hosting the portlet organizes
and
stores the configuration or personalization parameters handled to the
portlets.
Another problems that I see are:
* The administration interface should allow an administration tool to
be
built using portlets, but it must not impose additional requirements
on
the administration framework.
* Administration should not require the administrator to put the
portlet
in his portal page in order to administer it.
* It should be the responsibility of the WSRP service (or the
portal),
but not of the portlet, to manage the details of delegated
administration.
* Security of the usage and administration interface may be
different.
* It's delegated to the portlet to decide if a user can do
administration or not.
* The usage interface may have different scalability requirements
than
the administration interface.
Finally, there are different specifications that address management
of
resources in distributed environments such as CIM, SMNP, JMX (Java
specific). Also, in OASIS there is a proposal for a Management
Services
TC. We should investigate if any of them are suitable.
Regards.
Alejandro
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC