RE: [wsrp-interfaces] Multi-section rendering (Renamed)

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

My comments in prep for tomorrow's call
(in document order):

1. Is there a proposed QName for this extension? We have normally put this in the top-level header, but it certainly can be added late as that allows the settled semantics to be better represented.
2. For completeness the second paragraph should also indicate how the Consumer indicates support for the extension.
3. This may just be phrasing, but is the conformance statement in the second paragraph suggesting getMarkup invocations for each portlet-specified section or just that each specified section should be requested? I ask because one can debate whether SHOULD is too strong of conformance language given the ability to make valid arguments favoring differing implementation styles (in particular, one call per section vs one call for all sections). We will also need to think carefully through cases where the portlet specifies a section which the Consumer has no idea how to handle (e.g. TabHeader).
4. It wasn't obvious to me how different caching for each section was included until I dug into the schema. I suggest the descriptive text be more explicit about how the distinct information is returned. Once I had dug into this, the question arose as to whether MarkupContext was the right base for MarkupSections to extend. I suspect additional sections have more in common with resources than with the portlet's main markup and therefore MimeResponse would be a more appropriate base.
5. In 11.3.3, I would recommend rewording the duplicate conformance statement to eliminate the duplication. This both stops it from looking like an additional requirement and reduces likelihood of a later mismatch between the statements.
6. 11.3.3 should require that all specified section names match the Portlet-specified ones.
7. I would drop the complexity regarding choosing the main section. If wsrp-extra:body is requested, it appears in the main section. All other requested sections appear in extension fields.
8. Why would the default cacheability be "full" for sections when it is "page" for the main markup? Do we have good reasons for thinking most sections will be reusable across all users, navStates, modes and windowStates or is this just an internal inconsistency developers will struggle with?

Rich

From:	"Nathan Lipke" <nlipke@bea.com>
To:	"Nathan Lipke" <nlipke@bea.com>, "Michael Freedman" <michael.freedman@oracle.com>, <wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	10/16/2007 07:15 PM
Subject:	RE: [wsrp-interfaces] Groups - Interfaces concall added

---

I added in cacheability based
on wsrp-resourceCacheability.
 
Thanks,
 
Nate

---

From: Nathan Lipke [mailto:nlipke@bea.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:18 PM
To: Michael Freedman; wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-interfaces] Groups - Interfaces concall added
 
Thanks for the feedback,
 
Attached is a second draft
which allows for multiple sections to be sent and received in a single
request. It still allows for individual sections to be cached with their
own unique validate tag.
 
--
Nate

---

From: Michael Freedman [mailto:michael.freedman@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:39 PM
To: wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Groups - Interfaces concall added
 

Again inline: 

Nathan E Lipke wrote: 
I'll work on rewriting this tomorrow.
See comments inline.

Michael Freedman wrote: 
See inline:


Nathan E Lipke wrote: 
If you think a more generic solution
is needed with regards to sections, how does the following sound?

• Change the MultiPhaseRender from boolean to a list of Strings
• The consumer MUST call getMarkup() for each phase as enumerated
  • Unless the consumer has this phase validly cached
  • The consumer SHOULD call the phases in order (but cannot be guaranteed)
  • The portlet MAY decide each phases' cacheability
  • The response MUST contain the phase (sent in MarkupParams) as an extension to MarkupContext, to ensure the extension was understood by the producer
  Why can't this other markup be returned with the body (request) in a separate extension that holds the markup for each of the indicated sections?  Is there a reason we need the extra getMarkup calls except when client meta data needs to be written?
  Its expensive for the consumer to have to cache markup it cannot yet output. Also this would make it harder to cache individual phases.
  I think this is only true for certain implementations -- others I can imagine can deal with this reasonably and could/would prefer fewer network hops.  Maybe this complicates being able to add as a standard extension in the specification itself as this may need more discussion/time to work through.
  
  •  
  • The spec should define well known strings for wsrp-extra:head and wsrp-extra:body
  
  We have found the HEAD section is often more cacheable than the portlet content.
  Our most common use case is as follows:
  • The portlet relies on a common set of static (rewriting possible) styles and/or scripts in the <head> tag
    • These are cached initially (thus getMarkup("head") is only called once per session)
    • The portlet then uses the scripts/styles on many pages (states)
      • getMarkup("body") may be called many times
      This limits the amount of traffic (and processing) to a minimum.
      However, the producer is free not follow this by setting the "head" to be non-cacheable.
      That is was I suspected/expected -- you write-up however doesn't describe how this achieved -- the way things are worded now I would expect the head request to be cached using the same cache key as the body -- are you going to need extra "hints" like we have for resource requests that allows the consumer to send less information and hence get greater cacheability?
          -Mike-
      There are potentially two pieces to cache for the head section:
      • The head contents (e.g. the <script> or <link> tag)
        • May be static, if the URLs are constant
        • Likely to be long lived
        • What the tags refer to
          • Probably resource URLs
          • Maybe dynamic even if the URLs are static
          • Caching is independent of the head section
          
          --
          Nate
          
          Michael Freedman wrote:
          My preference is to separate the issue of rendering client response meta data (headers) from outputing markup in the client response that is distinct from the location of the portlets markup in that response.  And while I think that the header solution requires/will rely on this two phase rendering I don't think the rendering of other markup must/should.  And finally on the rendering of markup for other sections I would prefer a more generic solution that accounts for writing into another other well known or nameable section -- i.e. though head is the common/likely example why limit ourselves to this vs. providing a more generic solution?
          
          As for caching, have you found in practice that the content for the head section truly is tied to the current state of the portlet and hence should be cached at the same level as the portlet markup?  Or is this just a convenience for the implementation?
            -Mike-
          
          Nathan Lipke wrote:
          Attached please find a draft of our proposal to add support Head section (and headers) markup.
           
          Our goals included:
          Compatibility with JSR 286
          Independent caching of the head and body sections
          Support for most (all) markup languages
          Reuse of existing WSRP types and methods
           
          Thanks,
           
          Nate
           
          -----Original Message-----
          From: Michael.Freedman@oracle.com [mailto:Michael.Freedman@oracle.com]
          Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 11:31 AM
          To: wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
          Subject: [wsrp-interfaces] Groups - Interfaces concall added
           
           
          Interfaces concall has been added by Mr Michael Freedman
           
          Date:  Thursday, 11 October 2007
          Time:  08:00am - 09:00am PT
           
          Event Description:
          1-888-967-2253 or +44 118 924 9000 (Europe)
          meeting ID: 345337
          passcode: 060606
           
          Agenda:
          Discuss extension proposal for carrying portlet markup in a getmarkupresponse that is intended for other locations in the consumers markup response.  I.e. return markup for the Head section.
           
          Minutes:
           
           
          View event details:
          http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interfaces/event.php?event_id=16808
           
          PLEASE NOTE:  If the above link does not work for you, your email
          application may be breaking the link into two pieces.  You may be able to
          copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web
          browser.
           
          
          Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
          
          Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
          
          Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.

          
          Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.
          Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted and/or legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, and have received this message in error, please immediately return this by email and then delete it.[attachment "multiSectionRendering-singleRequest.doc" deleted by Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM]