Here are the minutes for this weeks conference
call.
Attendees:
Chris Braun
Michael Freedman
Alejandro Abdelnur
Carsten Leue
Eric Van Lydegraf
Andre Kramer
Discussion:
1. Resource URLs
a. Proxy Resource
URL
i. Versus Portlet Entity Resources
JSR 168 does not have the notion of embedding
large binary content within the markup. JSR 168 only addresses
portlets rendering markup or redirecting to a web resource. Does it
make sense for a local portlet to be accessing the containers response
output stream. This does seem contradictory to the portlet
model. This discussion will be continued in the next JSR 168 conf call
as well as the FTF, which is in two weeks. We will try to incorporate
a model for WSRP based on the information that we learn from the JSR
168 conversations. The key question that has to be answered
is: Do we support the notion of embedding binary data within the
markup of a portlet's markupResponse or would it make more sense to create a
new interface, getResource, for sending binary
attachments?
TODO: Alejandro will bring this up as a point
of discussion for JSR 168.
ii. Multiple Resource Locations (Proxy URLs)
It was discussed that it may be worthwhile to specify a mechanism from
portlets to be able to use relative references. In a complex producer
container, such as a JSR 168 container, the resource URL is constructed
by the container. This makes the actual URL transparent to
the developer. For simple producers the URLs would have to be fully
qualified. Thus, all Proxy URLs must be fully qualified. weather
this is handled by the producer or the actual entity is out of the scope of
WSRP.
b. Portlet Resource
URL
i. Do we
need another URL type to distinguish between proxy and portlet entity
recourses. Such as wsia:urlType=resource and
wsia:urlType=proxyresource
Tabled until next week. May
be dependent on how/if binary attachments will be handled
within markup.
ii.
Is there a new method signature for the interface, such as getResource()
? Or is this embedded in the getMarkup call?
Tabled. Continue discussion after JSR 168
has a chance to discuss this.
2. Attachments
a. Soap Vs.
Dime
- Soap
Dependency
- Effect
on WSDL Binding info
-
Implementation Specific?
SOAP has issues with carrying large data blocks
within the body of a soap message.
We will allow both SOAP-Attachments and DIME.
The idea is that we provide 3 WSDL binding schemas: A simple binding
schema which does not include support for attachments; A binding
schema which defines SOAP attachments; A schema which defines DIME
attachments. Since DIME requires interface additions we can add these
to the main WSDL interface as optional.
We won't make the requirement that the consumer
supports both attachment types. For example .NET consumers will not
support SOAP attachments and a JAX-RPC container may not support DIME.
We will require that the consumer support one of the WSDL bindings with
support for attachments. We will also require that the consumer must
support the simple WSDL binding.
TODO:
Alejandro:
Follow up with JAX-RPC to understand possible
support for DIME.
Carsten: Prototype (POC)
using optional DIME tags within a non-DIME consumer.
Carsten and Andre:
Write-up describe consumer relationship with attachment binding:
Dynamically created proxies and Pre-created proxies
b. Where is the
attachment embedded for both a response and a request (i.e.
interactionContext, interactionResponse, markupContext,
markupResponse)?
The current thought is that we embed the
request attachment within the interactionContext and the response attachment
within the markupResponse. We should investigate how this would map to
the JSR 168 local portlet world.
- Window States
Can portlet entities render
action links which change window state?
Portlet entities should be able to render markup links that will enable
user to change window state and portlet mode. To enable this we need
to define well known property names and values. For example
wsia:mode=edit|help|configure|view and
wsia:windowState=normal|minimized|maximized. This will be added to the
producer and consumer URL rewrite semantics.
We also need to define an extensibility mechanism so that custom modes
(or possibly window states) can be introduced by portlet producers.
The performInteraction interface should be enhanced to allow entities
to programmatically set window states and portlet modes.
Registration MetaData may need to include a semantic for
providing supported modes and window states as well as custom mode
information. We may need to formalize a custom modes/window state
extension mechanism.
TODO:
Interfaces Group: Add properties to performInteraction for
windowState and Mode support
Postponed Topics
- URL encoding (Revisit)
- Button and Label consistency across portlets
How can configuration
interfaces maintain a consistent look and verbiage across entities.
For example when saving customize information should buttons read "apply" or
"save".