OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsrp] Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Issue with current CachableResourceproposal


Assuming that there is such a flag in the request, what would the 
semantics of the flag be, for the producer?

Subbu

Richard Jacob wrote:
> well typically the producer manages that state and therefor has an encoder
> for JSR286 containers anyway (it encodes e.g. render URL params to
> navigational state). So the likelyhood is very small indeed unless its a
> "simple" URL encoding of these params.
> But as said I have no objections to add this field to the protocol.
> 
> Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
> 
>         Richard Jacob
> ______________________________________________________
> IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
> Dept. 2289, WebSphere Portal Server Development 1
> WSRP Team Lead
> WSRP Architecture & Standardization
> Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
> 
> IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Johann Weihen
> Geschäftsführung: Herbert Kircher
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
> 
> 
>                                                                            
>              Rich Thompson                                                 
>              <richt2@us.ibm.co                                             
>              m>                                                         To 
>                                        wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>    
>              03/15/07 05:03 PM                                          cc 
>                                                                            
>                                                                    Subject 
>                                        Re: [wsrp] Re: [wsrp-interfaces]    
>                                        Issue with current CachableResource 
>                                        proposal                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was my first take as well, but consider a Producer such as a JSR 286
> portlet container. If it is not a protocol field, the container would have
> to push this into the state which is otherwise related only to the portlet.
> While this is certainly doable, it raises a risk of name collision for this
> piece of state. The cost of adding the field is so small that I prefer
> having the Consumer separately supply it.
> 
> Rich
> 
>                                                                            
>  Richard Jacob                                                             
>  <richard.jacob@de.ibm.com>                                                
>                                                                            
>                                                                         To 
>  03/15/2007 11:46 AM                 Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS        
>                                                                         cc 
>                                      wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>      
>                                                                    Subject 
>                                      Re: [wsrp] Re: [wsrp-interfaces]      
>                                      Issue with current CachableResource   
>                                      proposal                              
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
>                                                                            
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, got it finally ;-)
> Yes could be usefull. However the producer could encode this also opaque to
> the resource state it delivers to the consumer and on receiving that back
> in gR() strip it away and make this its enforcement point. This way
> consumers wouldn't need to care at all if producer are enforcing or not.
> and thus have a little bit less protocol semantics.
> 
> But I don't have a strong opinion here and would also agree that we can add
> this as an explicit protocol paramter and enforce the consumer to add add
> it to its resource URL state.
> 
> Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
> 
>        Richard Jacob
> ______________________________________________________
> IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
> Dept. 2289, WebSphere Portal Server Development 1
> WSRP Team Lead
> WSRP Architecture & Standardization
> Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
> 
> IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Johann Weihen
> Geschäftsführung: Herbert Kircher
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
> 
> 
> 
>             Rich Thompson
>             <richt2@us.ibm.co
>             m>                                                         To
>                                       wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
>             03/15/07 02:53 PM                                          cc
> 
>                                                                   Subject
>                                       Re: [wsrp] Re: [wsrp-interfaces]
>                                       Issue with current CachableResource
>                                       proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. If the Producer is supplying URL writing functionality to the
> Portlet. It can refuse to encode disallowed URL types (e.g. throw an
> exception when the Portlet attempts to write a render URL when the
> cachability had been set to "full"). The spec should not require such
> enforcement of Producers, but I think enabling it would be a good idea.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> Richard Jacob
> <richard.jacob@de.
> ibm.com>
>                                                                        To
>                         Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>
> 03/15/2007 06:46                                                       cc
> AM                      Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, wsrp
>                         <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>, WSRP Interfaces
>                         subgroup <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org>
>                                                                   Subject
>                         Re: [wsrp] Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Issue with
>                         current CachableResource proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> can you explain what you mean by enforcement?
> I seem to miss context here. The parameter only influences consumer URL
> rewriting and what's on the resource URL sent to the browser.
> 
> Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
> 
>       Richard Jacob
> ______________________________________________________
> IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
> Dept. 2289, WebSphere Portal Server Development 1
> WSRP Team Lead
> WSRP Architecture & Standardization
> Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
> 
> IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Johann Weihen
> Geschäftsführung: Herbert Kircher
> Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen
> Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 243294
> 
> 
> 
>            Michael Freedman
>            <michael.freedman
>            @oracle.com>                                               To
>                                      Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
>            03/14/07 11:39 PM                                          cc
>                                      WSRP Interfaces subgroup
>                                      <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.o
>                                      rg>, wsrp
>                                      <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
>                                                                  Subject
>                                      [wsrp] Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Issue
>                                      with current CachableResource
>                                      proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am for adding it -- also copying the wsrp list in case anyone isn't on
> this one.
>   -Mike-
> 
> Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
>     I think it is a good idea to enable those Producers who can and are
>     willing to enforce the restrictions.
> 
>     Any objections to adding this field prior to the inclusion of the
>     proposal into the draft?
> 
>     Rich
> 
> 
> Stefan Hepper
> <sthepper@hursley.ibm.com>
> 
>                                                                       To
> 03/14/2007 12:02 PM                      WSRP Interfaces subgroup
>                                         <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-ope
>                                         n.org>
>                                                                       cc
> 
>                                                                  Subject
>                                         [wsrp-interfaces] Issue with
>                                         current CachableResource
>                                         proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>     While discussing in the JSR 286 EG how the producer may enforce the
>     restrictions mentioned for the type FULL and PORTLET we noticed that
>     the
>     producer does not get any information back on a serve resource call
>     about the cachability setting.
>     Therefore I propose to add the following on the ResourceParams type:
>     [O] string resourceCachability
> 
>     providing the resourceCachability value set on the resource URL that
>     triggered this getResource call. If this value is missing the default
>     is
>     that the cachability of the getResource call is of type PAGE.
> 
>     Stefan
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  affiliated
entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  copyrighted  and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]