[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for issue #44(set new public params)
Just a correction. Portlets don't need to encode in every URL provided
the Consumer encodes the parameters as part of its state. Depending on
how the consumer is implemented, it will have to update its state either
in memory (session), or URLs, or some database. But I don't think any of
these choices violate GET.
Subbu
Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
>
> I agree with all the comments below except (3). The state needs to be
> updated atleast once to provide meaningful experience.
>
> But it seems awkward to skew public parameters into render URLs, and I
> question the value of the solution. Here is why.
>
> Taking Stefan's use case of updating the zip code, every portlet on a
> given page must continue to encode the zip code in each URL generated to
> get a consistent user experience. Otherwise, the consumer-specified
> defaults will take over and the user would get really confused.
>
> Regards,
>
> Subbu
>
>
> Rich Thompson wrote:
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I find the whole SOAP vs REST debate irrelevant to this
> > discussion.
> >
> > There are some key questions though:
> >
> > 1. Does the semantics of getMarkup match that of HTTP GET so that
> > Consumers can use GET for render links?
> >
> > If the answer to #1 is yes (I think it is), then:
> >
> > 2. If PPs are added to URLs, can the Consumer support them for the scope
> > of the user interaction across all portlets on the page without
> > violating HTTP GET semantics?
> >
> > 3. If PPs are added to URLs, can the Consumer support them for a scope
> > encompassing multiple user interactions across all portlets interacted
> > with and not violate HTTP GET semantics?
> >
> > I think the answer to all three questions is yes, though #3 requires the
> > Consumer to support PPs as part of its own navigation state. Common web
> > usage would also allow storing the PPs in a user session, though
> > technically this would violate GET semantics as it is an update of
> > server-side state.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> >
> > *"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>*
> >
> > 07/26/05 10:05 AM
> >
> >
> > To
> > Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
> <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > RE: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for issue
> #44
> > (set new public params)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > But surely the (if any) desire is to enable GET semantics between the
> > browser and the consumer Portal for optimized “render” interactions? All
> > WSRP operations today use SOAP (and therefore POSTs) and are explicitly
> > not REST. In any case, I would argue for a simple developer model that
> > supports the use cases. These, for me, naturally require a statefull
> > consumer to serialize updating changes to shared public parameters or
> > could possibly be poorly supported by a set-for-one-interaction
> > /one-shot imposed limitation. I don’t particularly wish to go down the
> > “Web GET/POST semantics” rat hole for WSRP just for such a limitation.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andre
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] *
> > Sent:* 26 July 2005 14:15*
> > To:* wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org*
> > Subject:* RE: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for
> > issue #44 (set new public params)
> >
> >
> > I can definitely see useful coordination happening without the reversion
> > you describe if the Consumer chooses to treat PPs as part of the
> > Consumer's navigational state. This keeps it from impacting state
> > managed server-side (i.e. is compatible with GET semantics) while
> > enabling ongoing, state-oriented coordination of the portlets being
> > rendered for the user (i.e. once the zipcode PP is set, it stays at that
> > value until it is reset by some other user/Consumer/portlet action).
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > *"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>*
> >
> > 07/25/05 10:43 AM
> >
> >
> > To
> > Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
> <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > RE: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for issue
> #44
> > (set new public params)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Could Stefan & Richard please remind us as to when it is useful to have
> > a render URL affect other portlets on a page (just) for the duration of
> > one page fetch, when a subsequent refresh (browser button) is likely to
> > revert to the previous consumer state (as nothing permanent is being
> > implied spanning consumer/portlets)?
> >
> > I suspect any useful coordination state change seems more related to a
> > consumer effectively tracking and forwarding shared values and so the
> > Web request to the consumer should itself be a POST to the
> > consumer/Portal? Given PPs on render URLs that don’t last v.s. PPs in
> > action replies that do (SHOULD/MUST) aren’t developers going to choose
> > actions anyway, e.g. updating a charting page’s units from imperial to
> > metric?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Andre
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *
> > From:* Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] *
> > Sent:* 25 July 2005 15:02*
> > To:* wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org*
> > Subject:* Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for
> > issue #44 (set new public params)
> >
> >
> > I think it might be time to pull this discussion back out of the
> > abstract space and relook at the use cases we have accepted as
> compelling.
> >
> > Stefan & Richard have posted some use cases that clearly would benefit
> > from PPs being settable on URLs and need a PP scope of at least the user
> > interaction ... including all portlets accessed during the processing of
> > the user interaction. Could you post use cases requiring broader scopes?
> > I presume that if we find them compelling, my answer to Mike's previous
> > inquiry about requiring Consumers to support PPs may need to change.
> >
> > Rich
> >
> > *Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>*
> >
> > 07/25/05 09:06 AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To
> > wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
> > cc
> >
> > Subject
> > Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for issue
> #44
> > (set new public params)
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Stefan,
> >
> > This is question of scoping.
> >
> > As we have been debating, there are two options to let portlets update
> > some shared state (public params). The first option is to let portlets
> > encode such change in URLs, and the second is to let producers return
> > new public params within SOAP.
> >
> > Apart from the encoding rules, these options influence scoping of this
> > shared state that consumers can implement. If you go with the first
> > option, consumers will have to limit this shared state to a user's
> > session or just a few portlets on a given page. IMO, this is
> restrictive.
> >
> > However, if you go with the second option, consumer has more choice.
> > Consumers can implement wider scoping of this shared state.
> >
> > Subbu
> >
> >
> > Stefan Hepper wrote:
> > > I think this is mixing sematics. Anything that requires a pbia is
> ment
> > > to be a resource state change. For resource changes you need a
> blocking
> > > semantic. Navigational state and public params in my mind define the
> > > view state of the portlet and changing this state does not require a
> > > pbia nor a non-blocking action. The new parameters or state can
> just be
> > > provided to the portlet.
> > >
> > > This also relates to the W3C standard about GET and POST:
> > >
> > > " * Use GET if:
> > > o The interaction is more like a question (i.e., it is
> a safe
> > > operation such as a query, read operation, or lookup).
> > > * Use POST if:
> > > o The interaction is more like an order, or
> > > o The interaction changes the state of the resource in
> a way
> > > that the user would perceive (e.g., a subscription to a service), or
> > > o The user be held accountable for the results of the
> > > interaction."
> > >
> > > I don't see why it is necessary to pay the penalty of an action for
> > > changing PPs.
> > >
> > > Stefan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
> > > > Rich Thompson wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> My comment was that requiring action processing is always
> possible,
> > > >> but why would we require it in this case and not for
> > > >> mode/windowState/navState changes?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I agree, but the difference is the encoding rules.
> > > >
> > > > Subbu
> > > >
> > > >>
> > > >> Rich
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> *Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>*
> > > >>
> > > >> 07/22/05 09:48 AM
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> To
> > > >> wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >> cc
> > > >>
> > > >> Subject
> > > >> Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for
> issue
> > > >> #44 (set new public params)
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Thinking aloud, can't we map render URL use cases to use pbia?
> The
> > > >> reason for changing the value of a paramter could be the
> result of a
> > > >> user interaction, which can then compute new values and return
> with
> > > pbia
> > > >> response.
> > > >>
> > > >> Subbu
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> Rich Thompson wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It is possible to drive every style of update through action
> > > >> processing,
> > > >> > but I think that short changes the advantages of using
> render URLs
> > > >> where
> > > >> > they are appropriate.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > New navState can be specified on each URL (including render
> > > URLs), why
> > > >> > should not the Portlet be able to specify the shared version
> > (PPs)?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Rich
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > *"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>*
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 07/22/05 08:02 AM
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > To
> > > >> > Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
> > > >> <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > >> > cc
> > > >> > > Subject
> > > >> > RE: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp]
> Additional use
> > > >> cases for issue #44
> > > >> > (set new public params)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > After reading your previous email, I was driving towards a
> similar
> > > >> > recommendation for Portlets to “re-fresh” public parameters by
> > > >> return on
> > > >> > each WSRP interaction so that a consumer is more likely to
> forward
> > > >> > values that have been recently actively returned and I
> agree this
> > > >> means
> > > >> > Portlets have to maintain/store public param values e.g. in
> > > >> navigational
> > > >> > state. But, with such advice, I see no reason to have public
> > > >> parameters
> > > >> > to visibly appear on URLs (rewrite expressions or
> templates) at
> > > >> all. Why
> > > >> > introduce a new encoding and (in markup) transport mechanism
> > when it
> > > >> > seems a preferable Web Service (in SOAP response) encoding and
> > > >> transport
> > > >> > is already available and recommended?
> > > >> > > Regards,
> > > >> > Andre
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> >
> > > >> > *From:* Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] *
> > > >> > Sent:* 22 July 2005 12:24*
> > > >> > To:* wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org*
> > > >> > Subject:* Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use
> > cases for
> > > >> > issue #44 (set new public params)
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > The Interfaces SC discussion raised the question about the
> > scope of
> > > >> PPs
> > > >> > set in this manner. Namely; does the Portlet need to keep
> > > >> specifying the
> > > >> > PPs on all subsequent requests or can it depend on the
> Consumer to
> > > >> > resupply those values in the future (i.e. some scope, like
> > > >> user-session,
> > > >> > becomes mandated).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I think we should be careful to leave scoping questions up
> to the
> > > >> > Consumer, but if PPs are to function as a coordination model,
> > > then we
> > > >> > also have to discourage Portlets from setting all PPs on every
> > > URL. A
> > > >> > model where Portlets are encouraged to store current PP values
> > > >> > (preferably in navState) for use as default values should the
> > > Consumer
> > > >> > not supply a value on a subsequent invocation and only do PP
> > setting
> > > >> > when a value needs to change accomplishes this. It removes
> > > setting the
> > > >> > value each time such that coordination happens in a more
> > reasonable
> > > >> > manner while also providing for reasonable user experience,
> even
> > > when
> > > >> > the Consumer does not support and PP scope beyond the user
> > > >> interaction.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Note: We could consider a model where Portlets MUST encode all
> > > PPs on
> > > >> > all URLs such that this supplies the scope, rather than the
> > Consumer
> > > >> > determining the scope, but that this fails as the Portlet
> > might not
> > > >> have
> > > >> > access to all PPs (security and privacy reasons).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Rich
> > > >> >
> > > >> > *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS*
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 07/07/05 11:54 AM
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > To
> > > >> > wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > >> > cc
> > > >> > > Subject
> > > >> > [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional
> use cases
> > > >> for issue #44 (set
> > > >> > new public params)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Reposting, as requested ...
> > > >> > ----- Forwarded by Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM on 07/07/05
> 11:52 AM
> > > -----
> > > >> >
> > > >> > *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS*
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 06/15/05 09:24 AM
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > To: WSRP TC
> > > >> <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > >> > cc: > Subject: Re: [wsrp]
> > Additional use
> > > >> cases for issue #44 (set
> > > >> > new public params)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I had taken a to-do from the Interfaces SC to develop (in
> > > conjunction
> > > >> > with Stefan, Richard and Mike) a proposal for this portion of
> > Issue
> > > >> #44.
> > > >> > Here is that proposal: *_
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Philosophy:_* Since Public Parameters (PP) are another
> aspect of
> > > >> > Consumer managed state that is exposed to Portlets (the
> other two
> > > are
> > > >> > modes and windowState), Portlets should be able to request
> > > changes to
> > > >> > PPs in much the same way as they do modes and windowStates (on
> > URLs
> > > >> and
> > > >> > in responses from pbia and handleEvents). *_
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On URLs: (2 issues)_*
> > > >> > 1. Need to encode 3 pieces of information (request to set a
> > PP, the
> > > >> > PPname and the PPvalue) into 2 places (name=value) when
> using a
> > > >> > querystring and deal with the reduced set of characters
> allowed
> > > in the
> > > >> > path portion ('=' is not allowed). Templates also introduce an
> > issue
> > > >> > with how to encode multiple PPs ... preferably with the
> Template
> > > only
> > > >> > having a single placeholder.
> > > >> > -Proposal:
> > > >> > 1. All public parameters specified on a URL are concatenated
> > in the
> > > >> form
> > > >> > of "PPname1=PPvalue1&PPname2=PPvalue2".
> > > >> > 2. The resulting string is URL encoded (changes '=' into %3D
> > and '&'
> > > >> > into %26) to make it valid in both the querystring and path
> > > >> portions of
> > > >> > a URL.
> > > >> > 3. This URL encoded string becomes the value for the
> > > >> > wsrp-publicParameter URL parameter, regardless of whether
> template
> > > >> > processing or Consumer URL rewriting is in use.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2. How to encode complex PPvalues? I suggest serializing the
> > > >> PPvalue to
> > > >> > XML and URL encoding this XML. The Consumer would then receive
> > > the PP,
> > > >> > recognize it is of a complex type (based on PPname) and
> decode the
> > > >> > PPvalue to get the XML. *_
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Operation responses:_*
> > > >> > 1. Return PP requests via a field much as newMode and
> > newWindowState
> > > >> > request updates to those aspects of Consumer managed state.
> > Suggest
> > > >> this
> > > >> > field be of type QNamedStringArray, though it could be an
> array of
> > > >> > NamedString if we do not want to introduce a usage of a
> type from
> > > the
> > > >> > 'extra' namespace.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Rich
> > > >> >
> > > >> > *Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>*
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 05/24/05 07:55 PM
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > To
> > > >> > WSRP TC <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > > >> > cc
> > > >> > > Subject
> > > >> > Re: [wsrp] Additional use cases for issue #44
> > (set
> > > >> new public params)
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I too am interested in hearing people's current opinions. Our
> > early
> > > >> > coordination discussions considered this carefully. It was
> > > decided at
> > > >> > that time to not support two coordination models that
> delivered
> > > >> > equivalent function. Though I pushed strongly for such a
> > parameter
> > > >> > style mechanism, the subcomittee preferred Events because
> it not
> > > only
> > > >> > allowed state to be transferred but also actions. The current
> > > public
> > > >> > parameter model was introduced by me later and was crafted
> > > >> specifically
> > > >> > to not step on the the toes of Events. >
> > > >> > To extend this conversation I would like to pose:
> > > >> > 1. We consider whether publicParameters should be
> QNames so
> > > >> they
> > > >> > can be shared/reused across producers. Note: this is likely
> > needed
> > > >> > whether we stick with events or add the ability to encode a
> public
> > > >> > parameter directly in the URL.
> > > >> > 2. We consider adding a new "defined event" called
> > > >> > publicParameterValueChanged. The payload of this event would
> > be the
> > > >> > QName of the parameter and an Object any holding the parmeter
> > value
> > > >> > [though it might be nice to support our Any/String optional
> pair
> > > style
> > > >> > here].
> > > >> > 3. We consider defining the meaning of publicParameter
> > whose
> > > >> > capability contains the value "required" as meaning that
> normal
> > > >> usage of
> > > >> > this portlet requires the consumer to provide this value. The
> > > portlet
> > > >> > would still have to deal with situations in which this wasn't
> > > provided
> > > >> > but likely an end-user would consider this usage
> > > crufty/abnormal. For
> > > >> > example if a portlet required a CustID parameter and didn't
> > receive
> > > >> one
> > > >> > it could display a view that asks for a custID. The key
> here by
> > > >> saying
> > > >> > "required" [we can choose a different capability name] the
> > consumer
> > > >> can
> > > >> > distinguish between those public parameters that have a
> secondary
> > > >> impact
> > > >> > on the portlet [optional] and those that have a primary or
> > important
> > > >> > impact [required].
> > > >> > -Mike-
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Stefan Hepper wrote:
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> > I've some use cases that may be a good match for the ability
> > to set
> > > >> new
> > > >> > public parameters by the producer and to encode public
> > parameters in
> > > >> > URls by the producer.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 1. displaying content based on a specific product id:
> > > >> > - Portlet A allows to select a product from a list
> > > >> > - User clicks on a specific product
> > > >> > - Portlet B renders details of this product
> > > >> > - Portlet C renders currently available number of items on
> > stock for
> > > >> > this product
> > > >> > - user wants to bookmark this result in order to come back to
> > > product
> > > >> > tomorrow
> > > >> >
> > > >> > implementation with events:
> > > >> > Portlet A encodes the customer selection URLs as POST
> action links
> > > >> > Portlet A receives a performBlockingInteraction call
> > > >> > Portlet A returns event productID=10
> > > >> > Portlet B receive a blocking handleEvents call for
> > productID=10 and
> > > >> > returns new navigational state
> > > >> > Portlet C receive a blocking handleEvents call for
> > productID=10 and
> > > >> > returns new navigational state
> > > >> >
> > > >> > implementation with public params:
> > > >> > Portlet A encodes the product selection URLs as GET render
> links
> > > with
> > > >> > the productID as public param
> > > >> > Portlet A receives a render call with the public param
> > productID=10
> > > >> > Portlet B receives a render call with the public param
> > productID=10
> > > >> > Portlet C receives a render call with the public param
> > productID=10
> > > >> >
> > > >> > which would be much more efficient and also consistent with
> > the W3C
> > > >> > architecture as links that do only change view state should be
> > > encoded
> > > >> > as GET links.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 2. display content based on a specific customer id
> > > >> >
> > > >> > 3. display content based on the selected state of a map
> > > >> > portlet A displays a map of USA
> > > >> > portlet B displays information on the selected state (# people
> > > >> > registered, capital, ...)
> > > >> > portlet C displays all IBM labs in that state
> > > >> >
> > > >> > and many more.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > This would allow to have some gobal navigational state that
> can
> > > be set
> > > >> > via URLs by portlets. Also portlets may want to set new public
> > > >> params as
> > > >> > a result of an blocking interaction or a handle event call.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > What do you think?
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Stefan
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
> > TC that
> > > >> > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all
> your
> > > TCs in
> > > >> > OASIS
> > > >> > at: _
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> __https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php_
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > >
> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To
> > > >> > unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
> TC that
> > > >> > generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
> > > TCs in
> > > >> > OASIS at:
> > > >> >
> > >
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]