Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Transient Properties

[Richard Jacob <richard.jacob@de.ibm.com>]

scopes:
I think there are quite many of them which might be hard to understand for
portlet programmers. The definitions we currently have are not crisp yet
and seem to create some confusion - but perhaps we can work on them.

scope wsrp:consumerRequest
This scope for me seems to be the least usefull one.
Why would a sharing make sense of just one request? What does that mean for
the UI if we hit reload/back in the browser?
It seems not to be a very usefull UI concept for me.
I understood from the last discussion that you pointed out this wouldn't be
meant for sharing just for the portlet to preserve some state accross
requests.
In this case why can't the portlet handle it using the existing techniques
like interactionState/navState or session?
Assuming that this is not intended for sharing, why make it transparent
rather than keeping it opaque as today?

scope wsrp:navigationalState
This ist the most usefull for me and this one is what basically the use
cases we came up with so for really require.

scope wsrp:consumerSession
I can see the uses cases and understand the reasoning here.
Isn't that rather a shared session concept?
Wouldn't this open the door for portlets to stuff in a lot of data into
this global session and therefor pervent the Consumer to scale well?
Perhaps it should be the Consumer's decision which scope to choose which
would fit its environmental requirements?

scope wsrp:ConsumerApplication
I didn't get the definition yet. However in my mind this can make sense if
viewed as a "global" ConsumerContext.
Is this the process lifetime? Is it a kind of persistence? Or a choice of
the Consumer?
Is this a cross-user scope then?

other questions:
If we had cosumer app and session scope, wouldn't we need a means to delete
exisiting entries within these scopes? Otherwise they might grow quite
large.
Who would decide into which scope a property would be set? Is it the
portlet programmer? Could it be a business logic decision at the Consumer?
In which "direction" would the Consumer be allowed to change the scope of a
property?
Is the "only higher" approach the only correct one? i.e. couldn't the
portlet want to have ConsumerApp scope, but the Consumer would decide to
have it per session only?

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,

        Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
WSRP Team Lead & Technical Lead
WSRP Standardization
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com


                                                                           
             Michael Freedman                                              
             <michael.freedman                                             
             @oracle.com>                                               To 
                                       interfaces                          
             09/13/2005 07:29          <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.o 
             PM                        rg>                                 
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       [wsrp-interfaces] Transient         
                                       Properties                          
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




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-