wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Rationale for encouraging POP handles be UIDs
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 14:49:27 -0400
I have a couple of concerns with where
this seems to be heading:
1. Import/Export is currently the solution
designed for handling such use cases. Introducing a second optional feature
to provide work-arounds for when import/export isn't supported seems a
bit broken. Even if we do introduce the second approach, this won't address
how Consumers might achieve the desired functionality with v1 Producers.
2. Your use case starts out with "By
unique I mean that a consumer can use the value of a POP handle to match
POPs across registrations",
but then you go on to describe a use that crosses Producer boundaries as
well as registration boundaries. Wouldn't the cross-Producer usage effectively
require the POP handle be assigned by the Portlet when it was packaged
for deployment on Producers? If so, I would be concerned about issues with
Producer customizations and a lack of tools to bind such an identifier
to Portlet packages.
Rich
Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>
04/06/05 11:55 AM
|
To
| wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] Rationale for
encouraging POP handles be UIDs |
|
Import/Export isn't a required supported feature in
WSRP 2.0. Nor does
it apply in 1.0. In its absence consumers will still want to recreate
the set of portlets that existed in the packaged application; they we
merely lose the customizations of those portlets. I.e. they will
recreate the original portlet on the page from the POP but none of the
derived portlets that represent further customizations. In such a
scenario, the consumer needs a way to reassociate the relationships
between the portlet, POP and portlet meta data.
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> This scenario sounds like the reason we introduced a Consumer managed
> ID in the ImportPortlet data structure. This allows the Consumer to
> define the key its needs in order to be able to do the disambiguation
> you outline without relying on Producers to supply portletHandles
that
> can meet all possible Consumer needs.
>
> Is there a reason this ID, in a combination with an export/import
> solution, doesn't meet the need you outline?
>
> Rich
>
>
> *Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>*
>
> 04/05/05 06:44 PM
>
>
> To
> wsrp
<wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [wsrp]
Rationale for encouraging POP handles be UIDs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I have asked us to strongly suggest/require POP handles be unique.
By
> unique I mean that a consumer can use the value of a POP handle to
match
> POPs across registrations. I.e. if two registrations that a
consumer
> thinks are related [i.e. the same type of producer] offers the same
POP
> handle, then the consumer can equate the POP in one registration to
the
> other.
>
> Here is the use case/reason why consumers need this support/clarification:
> Portlets are beginning to move beyond typical usage where they are
> integrated into a Portal application to being viewed more generally
as
> UI components that can be integrated into any ole web application.
This
> transformation changes the deployment model considerably.
>
> Today many portal style deployments follow a model where the portal
> product is by and large deployed as a tool. Developers then
use the
> Portal [tool] to register their content producers, construct their
> portal application and then publish their portal application to
> appropriate sites.
>
> When portlets are used as UI components in web applications, however,
> the web application is packaged and deployed not as a tool but a
> running/working application. During the development process
[of the web
> application] content producers are registered, portlets included and
> likely customized. This application is then packaged into a
> distributable entity, sometimes with and sometimes without packages
> representing the producers. At deployment, the intent is to
recreate
> the application including its connections with its producers/portlets.
> Often this later requires some deployment intervention, specifically
in
> the case that the referenced producers are to be migrated to new
> installations [of that producer]. For example, a packaged application
> may have a reference to the many portlets its has created from using
> Producer XXX at location http://yyy [this reference was established
in
> the development environment]. The application is being deployed
by a
> customer who independently installs Producer XXX at location
> http://zzz. During the deployment process the deployer is asked
if they
> want to modify the connection information for Producer XXX -- and
as a
> local installation is being used the deployer says yes and changes
the
> URL reference from http://yyy to http://zzz. Following this,
the
> deployment process auto-egisters the producer [at location http://zzz]
> using registration information captured when the application was
> developed, communicates to the new producer to import its portlets
and
> finishes up.
>
> So why the need for unique POP handles? The answer lies in that
its
> reasonable to expect such consumer applications to manage [its cache
of]
> portlet meta data in an efficient manner by relying on a single record
> for all the portlets derived from a common POP. In such an
> implementation, the consumer needs a mechanism for rewiring these
> references when a producer connection is retargeted. I.e. at
deployment
> a new registration happens resulting in a new set of POPs and associated
> portlet meta data being read into the application cache. The
> application now wants to ensure that all its portlets from that producer
> are properly rewired to point to this new meta data. Somewhere along
the
> line the consumer is going to need to figure out how POPs in the
> packaged application relate to the POPs in the actual deployment.
[i.e.
> either from the POP point of view to figure out which meta data record
> this portlet description shoudl overwrite or from the cloned portlet
> point of view if the cloned portlet indirectly references its
> description via a POP reference/key]. Being able to rely on
the strong
> suggestion/requirement that POeP handles are unique minimizes th guess
> work involved. I.e. trying to implement a heuristic that matches
meta
> data values to identify the relationship.
> -Mike-
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
TCs in
> OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]