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

Some comments.


Stefan Hepper wrote:
> 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

I agree. It would be simpler and more deterministic to not have these two.

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

But navState can not be used to share state across portlets. I see some 
use for this scope.

> - 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.

Could you elaborate on why it would be hard to update these properties 
via URLs?


> 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]