[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Should portlets/producers indicate that they push outpersistent state?
well, depends on what really is externalized. Your examples refers to the installation/configuration. But it might "only" be the portlets private state and that's it. So accessing such a CCP with missing state might result in the same state as interacting with a POP. That's what I would expect. 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:email@example.com Subbu Allamaraju <firstname.lastname@example.org> To 01/12/06 04:28 PM email@example.com g cc Subject Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Should portlets/producers indicate that they push out persistent state? Consumers will be breaking the spec (since consumers are required to supply state) if they don't resend the state. On the producer's side, graceful degradation may be possible, provided the producer maintains some amount of persistent state (e.g. which cloned handle maps which POP handle). But I suspect graceful degradation would be hard to implement/support. Subbu Andre Kramer wrote: > There is also the question of graceful degradation: if the consumer does > not return state pushed to it, does the producer/portlet still offer a > minimal service? If this is generally desirable then maybe the extra > metadata is needed less? > > Regards, > Andre > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Jacob [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: 12 January 2006 10:54 > To: email@example.com > Subject: [wsrp-interfaces] Should portlets/producers indicate that they > push out persistent state? > > I have a question regarding persistent state pushing to the Consumer. > This can either be the state in the RegistrationContext or in the > PortletContext. > Currently the Producer can push its state whenever it likes to, and the > Consumer requires to handle it accordingly (return it back, persist it). > > Shouldn't we have metadate that indicates the Producer/Portlets > preference > to push out state? > In that case the Consumer can choose to not use such a portlet. > I see two use cases for it: > 1.) the Consumer can't/doesn't want to persist the data be it for > technical/resource reasons or legal/privacy reasons > 2.) the Consumer "shares" the handles with another Consumer/Machine. We > discussed such scenarios when we discussed import/export. > From the Producer's perspective this is still the same Consumer (unless > some security mechanism says otherwise), so protocol-wise this is > perfectly > legal. > However if the Producer chooses to push out persistent state, such > scenarios won't work unless the different "Consumers" sync themselves in > some manner. > > So what I'm asking for is basically two things: > 1.) add metadata to the ServiceDesc saying that the registrationContext > might contain state > 2.) add metadata to the PortletDesc saying that the portlet intends to > push > out state in the PortletContext > > 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:firstname.lastname@example.org