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] Should portlets/producers indicate that they push outpersistent state?


no, I guess this wouldn't work.
The assumption you make is that on the first invocation the Producer pushes
the state, be it registration or creating a clone.
But couldn't the push happen at a later time?
I guess it can. Since for example the portlet might have state persistet at
a later time than at the time clone() was invoced.
Assume Consumer makeing a clone(), then interact. Then at some point in
time hit edit mode and modify persistent state.
So if you share between the cloning and the state change, the scenario is
not implementable.

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


                                                                           
             Subbu Allamaraju                                              
             <subbu@bea.com>                                               
                                                                        To 
             01/12/06 05:05 PM         wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.or 
                                       g                                   
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Should        
                                       portlets/producers indicate that    
                                       they push out persistent state?     
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           





Richard Jacob wrote:
> why would it impose new rules?
> It's just a hint for the Consumer whether it has to deal with it or not,
if
> it can't it can simply avoid to use such a portlet.

I agree. Let's look at what's possible today.

For registration state, the consumer would know at registration time if
the producer returns state. If so, it can simply deregister immediately
and avoid using it.

For portlet state, if the consumer can't deal with state, it can drop
the CCP handle/state, and continue to use the POP handle with readOnly
flag (to prevent future clones).

> I don't think that your conclusion is right that if the consumer can deal
> with sharing the handles it automatically can share the state.
> Think of the migraton scenario as an example: you copy the consumer from
> one machine to another so the new machine has all handles available but
of
> course has no synch between the two in any way.

My argument is that it is possible to implement a consumer that can
share the handles and state without such a hint. A consumer dealing with
both 1.0 and 2.0 producers (assuming that we add such a flag in 2.0)
will have to design for such a sync anyway.

Subbu

>
> 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
>
>
>

>              Subbu Allamaraju

>              <subbu@bea.com>

>
To
>              01/12/06 04:24 PM
wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.or
>                                        g

>
cc
>

>
Subject
>                                        Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Should

>                                        portlets/producers indicate that

>                                        they push out persistent state?

>

>

>

>

>

>

>
>
>
>
> I see the use cases, but I wonder if a consumer supporting both WSRP 1.0
> and 2.0 can count on using such a flag.
>
> Secondly, from a specification point of view, such a flag would impose
> new rules on producers counting on pushing state to consumers as and
> when required.
>
> You mentioned sharing handles below. If a consumer is able to share
> handles (including cloned portletHandles) across different instances, it
> can share the state as well.
>
> Subbu
>
> Richard Jacob wrote:
>> 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:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com
>>
>
>
>
>





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