RE: [wsrp] Leasing questions

["Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>]

I would see more value in allowing a producer to declare that its policy
does not allow a consumer to influence (i.e. set) scheduled destruction
times but would leave this to a future "policy" framework, not v2. 

With this, I think the suggested returning lifetime information, even
when a (v1) producer states wsrp:leasing is false seems strange. Would
it not be better to just say wsrp:leasing is true and refuse to accept
any setTerminationTime request (i.e by just leaving the scheduled
destruction time unchanged in the reply)?

Regards,
Andre

-----Original Message-----
From: Subbu Allamaraju [mailto:subbu@bea.com] 
Sent: 03 July 2005 23:55
To: wsrp
Subject: [wsrp] Leasing questions

A v1 Producer could impose arbitrary lifetime restrictions on 
registrations and cloned portlets, and terminate(from the protocol 
sense) those after that lifetime. V1 Consumers cannot be aware of this 
lifetime.

If such a Producer offers to support parts of v2, is it valid for it to 
not offer the leasing feature, but express scheduled destruction via the

Lifetime parameter?

That is, can the Producer return wsrp:leasing  as false, but still 
return Lifetime within PortletContext (e.g. after a pbia) and 
RegistrationContext?

My current understanding of the spec is that this is not valid, and I 
see value in allowing this.

Regards,
Subbu

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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