Re: [wsrp] [CR308] - Add requestMethod field to MarkupParams

[Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>]

That is the work-around with WSRP1.0. Any reason against adding such a 
field? It would make it easy for web developers.

Subbu

Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
> Do we really need this field? The portlet has to already know this to 
> have coded the URL to use the right method. It can easily use that 
> knowledge (possibly by passing it to itself in navState) if it is 
> actually proxying the markup from somewhere else.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS*
> 
> 10/19/2004 09:00 AM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	[wsrp] [CR308] - Add requestMethod field to MarkupParams
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Document: Spec
> Section: 6.1.9 MarkupParams Type
> Requested by: Subbu Allamaraju
> Old Text:
> New Text:
>   [O] string      requestMethod
> 
>   . requestMethod: This field indicates the type of the HTTP request 
> used by the client to submit data to the Consumer. The Consumer MUST 
> supply a valid HTTP method as specified in Section 5.1.1 of RFC 2616 as 
> a value for this field.
> 
> Reasoning: In most situations, portlets can be programmed to be agnostic 
> to how the client submitted a request to the Consumer. However, there 
> are situations where a portlet must be aware of the type of the request 
> (such as GET, POST etc.) used by the client. For example, a portlet may 
> be acting as a proxy to fetch resources over HTTP from remote server. In 
> this case, the portlet must be aware of the request type so that it can 
> faithfully proxy resources.
> 
> In the current protocol, portlets can dictate the method type used for a 
> request within the markup (e.g., HTML forms, links, JavaScript etc). But 
> portlets cannot infer the method used by the client without explicitly 
> embedding it in its navigationalState for every URL created. The 
> proposed optional requestMethod field will address this need.
> 
> Errata? no