Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Tomorrow's agenda

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

While I generally agree with Mike's
comments, this is an area with broad enough interest that I expect a continuing
set of questions. I suggest we start an "AJAX-pattern" feature
proposal to begin capturing the interesting use cases. This would then
form the backdrop for developing a v2 statement regarding support for some
set of the use cases as well as a foundation for developing more comprehensive
support as part of the v3 effort.

Rich

Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>

03/02/06 11:00 AM

To	wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Tomorrow's agenda

I think I wasn't clear.  I believe that getResource
in so far as much as 
it is able given its current definition is the "official" support
we 
have for Ajax in v2.  My suggestion concerning extensions pertained
to 
extending the behavior of wsrp to support all of the Ajax use cases.  I
suggested this over trying to add function to v2 to preserve the intent
of v2 + reserve our ability to pursue solutions we deem appropriate when
we have time to look at this comprehensively.
   -Mike-

Subbu Allamaraju wrote:

> From my recollection and understanding, the key question still open
is 
> whether getResource is the recommended approach for this version.
For 
> example, one of your emails recently questions the suggestion for
> implementations to use getResource instead of extensions.
>
> We need to send a clear signal on this topic, particularly in the
wake 
> of the latest feedback we got in the comment list.
>
> Subbu
>
> Michael Freedman wrote:
>
>> Can you clarify what you want to discuss?  The minutes for
the last 
>> TC concall indicates we decided to defer support beyond what can
>> already be accomplished using getResource until 3.0.  Yes,
this topic 
>> can be reopened but wouldn't it be better to do at a TC call as
that 
>> was where the discussion/decision was made?    -Mike-
>>
>> Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Could you get the question of Ajax onto the agenda please?
While 
>>> discussing some of the topics below in the email thread, ajax
was 
>>> mentioned several times, and I suspect we will end up doing
the same 
>>> tomorrow.
>>>
>>> Subbu
>>>
>>> Michael Freedman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have attached a document that lists 3 open discussion
items from 
>>>> the wsrp list + the security topic.  I suggest we
spend a little 
>>>> time on the open issues but also make sure we have enough
time to 
>>>> begin the security discussion.  The topics have links
to the mail 
>>>> threads so you can refamiliarize yourself.
>>>>    -Mike-
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> navigationalParameterDescriptions: 
>>>> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/email/archives/200602/msg00027.html>
>>>>
>>>> Do we need to clarify language concerning consumers recognizing
>>>> like-named navigational parameters as related/auto wired?
>>>>
>>>> Clarification: Resource URLs and markup params, etc. 
>>>> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/email/archives/200602/msg00030.html>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    1. Stateless consumer
>>>>    2. Meaning of title?
>>>>    3. Change window state/mode?
>>>>    4. Concurrency problems with sessionID?
>>>>    5. During *getMarkup, handleEvents *and 
>>>> *performBlockingInteraction*
>>>>       invocations the Consumer indicates
to the Portlet its current 
>>>> mode
>>>>       via the MarkupParams data structure"
 Add getResource???
>>>>    6. Clarity of structure vs reuse of structure
-- Should we have
>>>>       specific types to clarify that a
few fields are no sensible?
>>>>    7. Caching when using getResource of portlet
markup ???? Not yet
>>>>       raised ---
>>>>
>>>> unclear behavior for dynamic nav params and transient
properties 
>>>> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/email/archives/200602/msg00076.html>
>>>>
>>>> Why don't we allow nav params/transient props to be introduced
>>>> dynamically like events?  Should we?
>>>>
>>>> Security questions: 
>>>> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interfaces/email/archives/200602/msg00003.html>
>>>>
>>>> Can we recommend that all producers support at a minimum
UserName 
>>>> with no consumer authentication?  Can we encourage
all consumer to 
>>>> send UserName with no consumer auth unless otherwise instructed
to 
>>>> do otherwise?  Will a producer work if it doesn't
handle the WS 
>>>> stuff but receives it?  I.e. will it just be ignored?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>