[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Fw: [wsrp] Request scope support
I think the current proposal strenghtens my arguments I made yesterday. It's not quite easy to implement such a message correlation on the consumer side and the value it gives seems quite limited to me. We seem already to have troubles to clearly define what such a cycle would be, what it would mean and at the same time keep the features that WSRP and JSR168 offers in terms of bookmarkability back button support, etc. If we defined the requestCycle flag what would the difference really be in letting the Producer set internally flag (without the protocol need to transfer it). The Producer can easily conduct the same information on the incomming request, i.e. if a pbia() or he() occurs on a portlet instance (use the portletInstanceKey here) then it can consider it a new request cycle. I don't see the value in the protocol support to mimic this behavior. Unfortunalty JSFdoesn't fit well into our model simply because it doesn't clearly seperate action processing from rendering. Now we seem to try to "retrofit" our protocol in such a manner that it can act as a single phase protocol. I think consequently this might break our intended behavior which we might not have foreseen yet, examples here are cachability, back button, bookmarks. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards, Richard Jacob ______________________________________________________ IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development WSRP Team Lead & Technical Lead WSRP Standardization Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888 Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.co m> To wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org 01/18/06 11:09 PM cc 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 [attachment "RequestID_proposal.doc" deleted by Richard Jacob/Germany/IBM] --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]