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

Some of my team members came up with an interesting use case related to this and I wanted to get some feedback:

Several portlets may share a common scripts or styles (e.g. Dojo). Some thoughts:

Is there anyway to tell the consumer it does not need to call getMarkup() for each portlet.

Possibly a grouping mechanism

i. Can/should this be related to cookie groups

Can the consumer merge head tags (link and script) that refer to the document?

What about tags with bodies?

Not solving this could cause large amounts of network traffic and worse multiple running of scripts not intended to do so.

Any thoughts, thanks,

Nate

From: Michael Freedman [mailto:michael.freedman@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 4:32 PM
To: wsrp-interfaces@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Multi-section rendering (Renamed)

Additional questions:
1) What does it mean to have differing markupsections return non-null clientAttributes?
2) Would it be better if the cacheability level is carried as an extension in CacheControl vs where you have it?
-Mike-

Rich Thompson wrote:

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

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.

For completeness the second paragraph should also indicate how the Consumer indicates support for the extension.

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).

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.

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.

11.3.3 should require that all specified section names match the Portlet-specified ones.

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.

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]

wsrp-interfaces message