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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsia message

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

Subject: RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec 0.43]createEntity/createTemplate/createPortlet

Title: Message
We are on the same page with the approach.
Three questions I might have:
1. Would URL parameters (e.g., http://foo.com/wsrp?s=weather) be more natural to those environments? (Still no need for an explicit parameter)
2. The problem we are trying to solve is a single service serving multiple portlet types (otherwise, there's no issue with either approach). Do we expect such services to use .NET out of the box or would it be reasonable to expect such service to implement custom SOAP-to-object mapping?
3. Would it make sense to assume that the function
createTransientThingy (...)
accepts a persistentThingyID as an argument, i.e.,
createTransientThingy (persistentThingyID)
and that persistentThingyID can be assumed to include <portlet type, portlet instance, [portal id]>
and leave the question whether we want to separate those components into explicit variables to a WSRP-specific discussion?
-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Leue [mailto:cleue@de.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2002 6:36 AM
To: Eilon Reshef
Cc: 'Alan Kropp'; 'Gil Tayar'; 'Michael Freedman'; wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec 0.43]crea teEntity/createTemplate/createPortlet

Eilon - I would discourage the URL path approach because it seems as if
this worked only in a servlet world. The SOAP servlet intercepts the
request, interprets the remaining portion of the URL and addresses the
internal service according to this URL. E.g. a request to
http://foo.com/wsrp/weather would be intercepted by the
"htttp://foo.com/wsrp" servlet with the service identifier "weather". Do I
understand this approach correctly?
The problem is that this won't work in AXIS or in .NET. That's why I would
prefer to have a single service and do the dispatching using a class
identifier that is passed as an explicit parameter.

Best regards
Carsten Leue

Dr. Carsten Leue
Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory B÷blingen , Germany
Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401

|         |           "Eilon Reshef"    |
|         |           <eilon.reshef@webc|
|         |           ollage.com>       |
|         |                             |
|         |           05/24/2002 07:33  |
|         |           PM                |
|         |           Please respond to |
|         |           "Eilon Reshef"    |
|         |                             |

  |                                                                                                                                             |

  |       To:       Carsten Leue/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, "'Alan Kropp'" <akropp@epicentric.com>                                                      |

  |       cc:       "'Gil Tayar'" <Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com>, "'Michael Freedman'" <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>, <wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>,  |

  |        <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                                                                          |

  |       Subject:  RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec 0.43]crea teEntity/createTemplate/createPortlet                     |

  |                                                                                                                                             |

  |                                                                                                                                             |



Clearly there's a need for a single servlet to handle multiple portlet
types. Why do you feel there's a need for a single service (in the WSDL
sense) to handle multiple portlet types? Why not map multiple services,
each representing a different portlet type, into a single servlet using
WSDL techniques, such as URL paths, etc.?

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Carsten Leue [mailto:cleue@de.ibm.com]
      Sent: Friday, May 24, 2002 10:48 AM
      To: Alan Kropp
      Cc: 'Eilon Reshef'; 'Gil Tayar'; 'Michael Freedman';
      wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
      Subject: RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec
      0.43]crea teEntity/createTemplate/createPortlet

      Alan -

      from my point of view there are a couple of advantages introducing
      concept of a service container (at least for WSRP):

      - for WSRP all services are of the same type, so handling them (life
      invokation framework on the server, addressing) will be the same. In
      case it is much easier to handle the request centrally at one single
      - a portal might expose a large number of portlets. If there was no
      container the service would need an entry point (e.g. soap servlet)
      each of the portlets. This is not only difficult to setup but may
      consume a lot of resources (depending on your app server)
      - conceptually a portlet is something that runs inside a portlet
      manages access, lifetime etc) . So it makes sense to adpot this model
      the remote case by introducing a service container.

      Best regards
      Carsten Leue

      Dr. Carsten Leue
      Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory B÷blingen , Germany
      Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401

      |         |           Alan Kropp       |
      |         |           <akropp@epicentri|
      |         |           c.com>           |
      |         |                            |
      |         |           05/24/2002 01:32 |
      |         |           AM               |
      |         |           Please respond to|
      |         |           Alan Kropp       |
      |         |                            |


        |       To:       "'Eilon Reshef'" <eilon.reshef@webcollage.com>,
      "'Michael Freedman'" <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>, "'Gil Tayar'"

        |        <Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com>

        |       cc:       wsia@lists.oasis-open.org,

        |       Subject:  RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint
      interfaces][Draft Spec 0.43]crea
      teEntity/createTemplate/createPortlet               |





      Along the lines of Eilon's question, I'd like to have a better
      understanding as to what the WSRP Producer Container is for.  I
      confess to
      not being well-informed on the motivation for introducing this
      concept in
      the early interfaces/protocols discussions.  My hope has been that it
      entirely a WSRP-specific construct, and therefore not something that
      to be accounted for in the joint interface.  But I'm not convinced
      one way
      or the other, yet.

      In the interests of furthering this discussion, if you could run down
      main points behind the container, for both groups, I think it would

      I think Mike's outline of the lifecycle interfaces from a "pure" WSRP

      perspective, in relation to Gil's and Rich's latest rev of the joint
      interface specification, represents the clearest illustration yet of
      "gap" we need to close.  This is good progress.


            -----Original Message-----
            From: Eilon Reshef [mailto:eilon.reshef@webcollage.com]
            Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 3:36 PM
            To: 'Michael Freedman'; 'Gil Tayar'
            Cc: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
            Subject: RE: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft


            Per the tension you mentioned, and your previous e-mail with
            "Container" interfaces (C1-C4).

            This is a question that Rich referred to as "Heterogeneous
            Homogeneous" services. The question is whether the "container"
            behavior should be an explicit part of the interface (as you
            suggested in C1-C4 = "heterogeneous") or can be implicit in the

            interface by providing different "services" (in the WSDL
      sense), each
            representing a separate portlet type (= "homogeneous").

            Why do you feel that WSRP needs the heterogeneous service?
      Couldn't a
            single container/server provide different services for
            portlet types, and use WSDL techniques (mainly, URL paths) to
            differentiate between the different portlets?

                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Michael Freedman [
                  Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2002 5:51 PM
                  To: Gil Tayar
                  Cc: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
                  Subject: Re: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint
                  Spec 0.43]createEntity/createTemplate/createPortlet

                  I don't think we want to give up so quickly on this.  As
                  think all calls (after createEntity) need to be passed
                  entity handle -- and would find each to be unnatural if
                  defined they took an optional "bind" key.  Also, I don't
                  entities are WSRP exclusive things.  Rather I think the
                  is WSRP needs (generic) container model while many
                  will be happy running as standalone services.
      Personally, I
                  wonder if we will end up with two APIs -- one for service

                  simple and one for service container -- much like I
      depict in
                  the e-mail sent earlier describing different component
                  needing to be modeled.  Though containing by and large
      the same
                  API the difference is the need for createEntity and
      passing the
                  return handle in all subsequent operations -- i.e.


                  Gil Tayar wrote:
                         In the interest of sanity and progress, I have
      broken up
                        Rich's, Michael's, Monica's and Eilon's emails into
                        subjects - "Shared Transient Information",
                        Information Scope",
      "session and
                        entity handles", and "Property lists". This email
                        deal with
      createEntity/createTemplate/createPortlet, and
                        the relevant quotes from the emails and my reply to
                        Rich wrote:> Presuming the 2nd case to get dropped
                        relative to the previous set of
                        > emails, I would propose this section call out how
                        will refer to these
                        > things throughout the remainder of the
      document/API. In
                        particular, I would
                        > suggest:
                        >       Session Information - This is carried
      opaquely in
                        the interface as a
                        >       "sessionID".
                        >       => goes away
                        >       Persistent Information - This is carried
                        in the interface as
                        >       a "handle".> > Rather than "Manifestation",
                        would propose using "Entity" to describe the
                        > thing from which markup may be requested. I think
                        has the right level of
                        > opacity (Consumer has no idea what kind of entity
                        is) while carrying
                        > appropriate semantics (a thing that may be
                        with). Using these
                        > terms, there was also an open question at the end
                        our last call related
                        > to whether there were both persistent and
                        entities ... > > If we are going to support
                        lifecycle for both of these, I would
                        > propose:
                        >    handle   createEntity(handle, propertyValues)
                        >    sessionID   createSession(handle,
                        Michael wrote:> 1) createEntity (aka
      createTemplate). In
                        WSRP we have discussed requiring
                        > consumers register with a producer to "activate"
                        Registration returns an
                        > 'activation' handle used in subsequent calls to
                        identify the consumer.  How can
                        > we account for this with the createEntity (and
                        APIs?  I really, really,
                        > really, don't want this to be an property value.
                        what is the actual
                        > intent of these property lists?  Gil implies they
                        persistence presets.  If
                        > so should we have a separate list parameter that
                        the consumer to further
                        > qualify the Entity being created?  I.e. in WSRP
                        portlets aren't the direct
                        > producer -- they are managed/contained by the
                        We will want to use
                        > the createEntity call to create/be tied to these
                        subtypes -- hence need someway
                        > to qualify it in the call.  Finally, are we
                        the service never wants to
                        > programmatically authorize this operation?  If
                        don't we need to pass User
                        > identity and roles as well?> > 2) destroyEntity
                        destroyTemplate).  Since we seem to want to support

                        > creating new entities from existing one's do we
      want to
                        support cascading
                        > delete?  If not we likely should support bulk
                        [Note: should we
                        > consider bulk create as well for
                        purposes?]  As with
                        > create entity the consumer ID should be
                        wrote (and I condense...):[...]> Would you find the

                        following, radically simplified, suggestion for an
                        operation> name intrusive:> createPortlet> Along
                        lines, a portal would call the operation
                        would get back a > (persistent) portletID and then
                        (optionally) call createSession with the portletID.
                        2. The ability to create a persistent key seems to
                        only under the scope of > WSRP and not under WSIA.
                        supports a persistent key to create sessions and >
                        subsequent operations, but wouldn't probably deal
                        how they are created> and management (with all the
                        associated issues that are well described in
                        latest summary). Hence, the motivation to use a
                        portal-specific name.So now Gil writes:It seems
                        Michael, Eilon, and myself believe that the
                        createEntity/Template/Portlet operation is
      particular to
                        WSRP (Rich, I even remember adding the
                        thingie as a shot in the dark to where WSRP is
      going - it
                        seems the shot missed!).I suggest then, dropping
                        from the joint interface subcommitee, and leaving
      it in
                        the hands of the WSRP. Having said that, we must be
                        to support some type of connection between the
                        template/entity/portlet and the "session handle",
      so what
                        I propose is that the createSession/Instance
                        (outlined above) will accept an unspecified
                        i.e.:sessionHandle/ID =
                        createSession/Instance(bindingKey).The "bindingKey"
                        be an opaque string to be defined either by the
                        service, or defined by specs above WSIA (i.e.
      WSRP). One
                        can argue that this is similar to JDBC's
      "connection URL"
                        (in getConnection) which is an opaque string
                        when "connecting". WSRP could also use it to
      specify the
                        "sub-service/portlet" of the container, if WSRP
                        to go the heterogenous.My suggestion is to drop the

                        createEntity/Template/Portlet, and
      leave:sessionHandle =
                        createSession(bindingKey) [bindingKey is an
                        which will be used in the future by WSRP binding

                        ...) [i.e. all operations within the session will
                        the sessionHandle]destroySession(sessionHandle)And,
                        Michael suggested, resolve timeout and implict
                        creation and deletion issues ASAP.(I specifically
                        the "propertyList" arguments as they are not the
                        here, but that doesn't mean that I don't support
                        Gil TayarWebCollage

      To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
      manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

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

Powered by eList eXpress LLC