[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: [wsrp-interfaces] Background for object model discussion duringThursday 8/22 WSRP interfaces call
Folks -- I volunteered to work up some details of the "object model" discussion we started last week, i.e. around unifying our treatment of entities and sessions as different levels of scoping rather than fundamentally different concepts...here are some questions and possible implications for the interfaces that result for discussion tomorrow. Charlie Wiecha -------------------- Questions: 1. Should we think of entity and session as defining two scopes for state rather than orthogonal concepts? 2. If so, can we imagine wanting to extend these scopes with additional ones, e.g. request, page, etc? 3. If so, can we think of an extension mechanism for carrying the "context" bundles at each scope (entity, session, request, page) in a uniform structure? 4. Invoking getMarkup/performInteraction would then take a context bundle at a given scope, and perhaps return one at a narrower scope (entity->session) as determined by the producer. What goals might a unified context mechanism support? 1. Extensibility of WSRP to new levels of scoping (as in request, page) 2. "de-scoping" of WSRP to simpler models of scope, e.g. session only 3. Interoperability among implementations of WSRP supporting differing scoping models, with common operation signatures, e.g. mixing producers supporting entities with those that do not Issues 1. Is there a benefit in allowing for additional or fewer scopes in WSRP implementations? 2. From an implementation standpoint, is it any easier to implement a non-entity supporting Producer than an entity-supporting one? (still needs sessions?) 3. If so, is there a further benefit in supporting interoperability between entity-supporting WSRP implementations and non-entity implementations supporting sessions only? Can a consumer be written without being aware of the scopes a given Producer supports? 4. Given a unified context mechanism, should get/setProperties be supported at each scope? Should getProperties implement a search through the scopes or are they independent? What might the operations look like with unified context structures? Current signatures: markupResponse = getMarkup(consumerContext, entityContext, markupContext); interactionResponse = performInteraction(consumerContext, entityContext, interactionContext) Possible unified interface: markupResponse = getMarkup(consumerContext, producerContext); producerContext = performInteraction(consumerContext, producerContext, interactionArgs)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC