wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia] [change request #245] UserScope and caching
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 08:29:10 -0500
The more general statement is that this
relaxation is only appropriate if we are confident that the "perUser"
scope is a proper subset of the semantics of all interesting scopes that
are likely to be defined. I doubt this is true and therefore favor the
statement as it currently is in the spec.
Another view on this is that since the
Consumer explicitly tells the Producer what userScopes it supports, the
Portlet/Producer specifying a different userScope is explicitly stopping
the caching of the markup and might be notifying the Consumer of an interest
in a particular userScope (presuming reasonable logging is happening).
Rich Thompson
| Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>
03/24/2003 07:10 AM
|
To:
wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:
RE: [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia] [change request
#245] UserScope and cachin g |
Say I wanted to have a "perApplicationUser"
scope that specified how markup is to be handled over performBlockingInteraction
boundaries. With this proposal, I could only use this if consumers supplied
"perApplicationUser" as one of the consumerUserScopes in RegistrationData
on (optional in-band) registration. [And I will have to advertise this
scope as available e.g. using a read-only registration property!]
regards,
Andre
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 21 March 2003 20:21
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia] [change request #245] UserScope and caching
Spec 0.92/Section 6.1.5/Page 30/Lines 43-47
Old text: "If the Consumer does not know how to process the specified
userScope, it MUST NOT cache the markup."
New text: If the Consumer does not know how to process the specified userScope,
it MAY NOT cache the markup or it SHOULD handled as *perUser* userScope."
Reasoning: I think it is to strong to require not to do caching at all
when the perUser scope would be a safe fallback as it is private to the
user.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]