wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Leasing questions
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 08:05:02 -0400
The conformance language ties two behaviors
together, responding with leasing information is bound to supporting the
leasing feature. As Andre has said, the Producer could always refuse to
update a termination time (i.e. its policy on the termination time is set-once).
What would be the value in trying to
separate leasing into multiple parts? In particular, would it be worth
the additional complexity such a separation would bring?
Rich
Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>
07/04/05 09:23 PM
|
To
| wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] Leasing questions |
|
Let me pose the question differently. Through out
the spec, whenever
there is a reference to Lifetime structure, there is wording that says
that Producers returning this structure MUST support the leasing feature
(e.g. see sec 6.1.3).
Strictly speaking, when a Producer says via its ServiceDescription that
the leasing feature is not supported, what is the purpose of the
additional conformance language?
Regards,
Subbu
Andre Kramer wrote:
> 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
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]