RE: [wsrp] Request scope support

Both request and reply messages may be dropped by the network (e.g. some proxy in a forwarding chain). The resulting uncertainty about the state of a action/event/render cycle implies that a producer could at best communicate it’s intention to initiate a new cycle (e.g. via a monotonically increasing counter rather than a boolean). Having missed the call, I’m not clear on the benefits (if any) this would bring. At best a consumer could tell if it had recently seen an action or event the producer associates a render request (having the same producer set identifier) by keeping recent action (ids) in a consumer side cache?

What about leveraging the existing ability to return markup from actions and events? At least this allows two phases (not three) to be collapsed. Here, events become a sort of “action” that (like actions) result in a new (consumer) cacheable rendering. Of course, this implies that producers don’t just throw away such markup returns and that all events are independent of action request values. That may be a recommendation we should make (always make events independent of the initiating action)?

Regards,

Andre

From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 18 January 2006 22:10
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp] Request scope support

For those not on the Interfaces SC call today, the use cases regarding Producers who have a concept of a user-request scope needing some support from Consumers was discussed. There was a building consensus toward having the Consumer supply an ID which changes only on action or event processing, though most wanted to see a proposal in the context of the spec and think through what the impacts of those changes would be on reasonable Consumer implementations before deciding whether or not to include such support in v2. I agreed to draft such a proposal, but had a problem with the scenario of a End-User jumping to a different state of the page. This can easily happen via a bookmark, but also may happen when the browser's back button is pushed. This caused me to change the proposal to a style where the Consumer indicates to the Producer when it knows a new requestCycle is starting via a boolean rather than being more definitive by supplying an ID. I left the original attempt in (with a strike through the text) so that people can easily consider that option as well.

Rich

wsrp message