Re: [wsrp-conformance] [AS096]

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

Going back to the conformance statement,
I guess the key question is defining what "appropriate default behavior"
means. Personally I would not include throwing an exception in that definition.

Rich Thompson

Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com> 04/16/2003 05:59 PM

To:                 cc:        wsrp-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org         Subject:        Re: [wsrp-conformance] [AS096]

But what does fail mean? Not crash?  I suspect Andre
may mean that fail means throws an exception which should certainly be
valid in this situation.  Are you suggesting that an exception isn't
a reasonable fallback?
     -Mike- 

Rich Thompson wrote:

Because the conformance statement says the Producer needs to have a reasonable
fallback. 

Rich Thompson

Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com> 04/15/2003 04:21 AM

To:        Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, wsrp-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org        cc:                Subject:        RE: [wsrp-conformance] [AS096]

Why should they not be allowed to fail? The portlet may not be able to
render any content if it can not work out who / what the user is?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 15 April 2003 02:46
To: wsrp-conformance@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-conformance] [AS096]


Old: 
Producers shall be prepared for Consumer invocations that do not specify
any user category. 

New: 
Invocations of Producer operations shall not fail just because the Consumer
did not specify any user categories. 

Rich Thompson