OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp-interfaces message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Transient Properties

Hi Mike,
here my list of issues:

- requiredScope, preferedScope
should be removed, the portlet should only be specifying one scope, the 
consumer should be free to upgrade this scope to one that provides the 
same semantics but may last longer then the requested scope

- wsrp:consumerRequest
I don't think this is a useful shared state, I think portlets should use 
the nav state instead

- wsrp:consumerSession, wsrp:consumerApplication
can we combine these two into one state to make things less complex for 
portlet programmers? Something like wrsp:consumerContext. This scope 
should be per user and should have at least the lifetime of the current 
user session, but the consumer is free to extend the lifetime beyond the 
current user session.

Also I see problenms in allowing render links to influence these scopes. 
I would only allow to write to these scopes as return of a pbia or he.
This may be a reason to create two seperate concepts: something like the 
public params that can also be influenced via URLs and a consumerContext 
that can be only changed as result of a pbia or he.


Michael Freedman wrote:
> This Thuirsday, we will continue our conversation on transient 
> properties.  To better focus this discussion I would like to get a an 
> understanding of which areas of the proposal cause concern.  This not 
> only will allow us to focus our discussion but will enable me to 
> evaluate whether there is a basic consensus on the core model or not.  
> Can you please send this list your specific area's of concern (and why 
> you have this concern)?  Where applicable, please be as specific as 
> possible -- if you are concerned about the notion of supporting scopes 
> in general you might list the issue as "scopes" and go on to decribe why 
> you think transient properties shouldn't have a defined scope.  If you 
> have an issue with a specific scope -- say wsrp:consumerApplication you 
> would list it specifically and describe what your concern is.
>       -Mike-

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]