[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp-coord] A few questions regarding the current semantics do c
Hi Yossi & Scott, I would not be too concerned with further optimizing
our proposed synchronous coordination mechanism; rather making it fit our 1.0 pbia
/ getMarkup model well. I do see a need for a more efficient but asynchronous update
mechanisms where Portlets can be notified of data changes and re-act to them. Possibly,
we should introduce a way for actions to be synchonized with respect to such (external)
changes? A page could hold a set of virtual clocks (one or more for each
producer) and supply and update these on each wsrp (markup) operation. This
would provide a mechanism for synchronizing to change notifications rather than
the data updates themselves to be communicated. Regards, Andre From: Tamari, Yossi
[mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com] Hi Scott, Indeed it is a 3 step process, I ignored the
third one because it can be "optimized" into the second one (see
open question 7). Let's assume for the sake of this discussion we will do
this optimization, since we are talking about optimizing the protocol. However, I don't think what you are
suggesting can work as is, because during getMarkup, a portlet MUST NOT change
its state, which makes handling an event that changes its data impossible (in
other words the next getMarkup must return the same markup as the previous
one). So the next step is to say that only a
handleEvents to each portlet is needed (since it can return markup). What we gained here is we do not need the
initial pbia, at the price that consumer must know when the value (of
"sales region" in your example") was changed by the user, rather
than leaving this responsibility to the portlet in which this happened. I still
don't understand how you propose to do this, which is I meant by the
"all portlets are equal" remark. If your suggestion is that the portlet
expose which name in its formParameters represents a shared state parameter, I
think this is a valid suggestion, but it goes a little too far on making
assumptions on the way the portlets and consumers are implemented for achieving
an optimization (for example, the portlet will not get a chance to validate the
value that was entered). But this is just my opinion... In any case, we have agreed before that
there is a possibility of building a shared state mechanism on top of the events
mechanism (regardless of whether it starts with a pbia), but we also agreed to
defer the discussion.
Yossi. From:
Goldstein, Scott [mailto:Scott.Goldstein@vignette.com] Currently,
I think it's a three step process: 1. pbia() call to create the event 2. handleEvents() call to distribute the event 3. getMarkup() calls to render the portlets The data
use case suggests that this can possibly be reduced to a one step through a new
form of non-opaque state shared amongst all portlets on the page. This
state is carried within a request parameter within the "sales
region" URL's. The parameter is then set within a field on
the MarkupParams. This form of sharing would reduce the process to only
the getMarkup() call. I'm
not quite sure I understand what you mean when you say, "The assumption
here is that all the portlets in the page are equal, so you can not assume the
"change sales region" is somehow especially "near" the
consumer." Could you clarify? Scott
From: Tamari,
Yossi [mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com] Hi
Scott, Regarding
1, I think we all agree this is a common use case, perhaps the most common one.
However, I don't see how it can be solved generally in a more performant manner,
in a WSRP environment. Specifically, I don't see the how using the
"initial state" direction can solve this. The
assumption here is that all the portlets in the page are equal, so you can not
assume the "change sales region" is somehow especially "near"
the consumer. Can you
explain how you would optimize this? (Currently it is a two step process, where
the second step involves multiple WS requests in parallel, so an optimization
would probably require making it a single step process.)
Yossi. From:
Goldstein, Scott [mailto:Scott.Goldstein@vignette.com] I have a few questions regarding the
current eventing semantics document. These are all items which have been
discussed before I joined the TC, so I apologize if I'm simply missing
information which has already been presented. 1. The data use case written
up by Mike has been translated into goal 4 of the document. The goal
states that the data use case only applies to the initial state of the
portlet. It's not clear to me, though, why this limitation has been
set. Consider the following example: There are several portlets on a page
which comprise a composite application to share company sales
information. One portlet contains a set of links for all of the sales
regions in the company. When a user selects a sales region in this
portlet, the rest of the portlets on the page display some specific information
about the selected sales region. Though I agree that this example can
be implemented using the current eventing framework, I don't feel that it can
be done in an ideal fashion. It would require a pbia() call when
selecting a sales region and additional calls for each portlet to distribute
the resulting event. This is a lot of overhead, considering all
that's needed is to pass a sales region id to all of the portlets on the
page. This seems like a common portlet coordination use case which
should, ideally, be handled in an efficient manner. Do others
agree? Does it, therefore, make sense to expand goal 4 beyond just the
initial state of the portlet? Or, am I incorrectly interpreting the term,
"initial state"? 2. Besides the use case
presented by Mike, are there any other documented use cases which are being
used as input to the document? The other URL listed seems to describe a
general business scenario rather than concrete portlet coordination use cases. 3. What are the use cases for
returning a new Portlet Mode and 4. What happens when two
portlets return the Maximized window state? Does section 3.2.3 come into
play here? Is it up to the portal to decide? This issue seems
similar to the redirectURL problem discussed last week. Thanks for the information. Scott |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]