Re: [wsrp-interop] cloneBeforeWrite for CCP

[Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>]

This leaves one question open. With choices (1) and (3), what happens if 
the Consumer is sharing a CCP for multiple users, and would like to 
instruct the Producer to clone the CCP before making state changes?

Any reason why we can't require a stricter interpretation of 
cloneBeforeWrite (an is option (2) below)?

Subbu

Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
> The answer from the spec is that the Consumer is telling the Producer 
> that the user does not have permission to change the portlet's 
> configuration and that if such changes are required, a clone is allowed 
> and must be generated before the changes are applied. The Producer has 
> three basic choices (due to implementation differences); 1) Throw a 
> fault and force an explicit clone, 2) immediately clone (when 
> configuration changes are not later protected) and 3) intercept 
> configuration updates and clone only on the first one that occurs.
> 
> Rich
> 
> 
> *Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>*
> 
> 08/24/2004 09:42 AM
> 
> 	
> To
> 	wsrp-interop@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	[wsrp-interop] cloneBeforeWrite for CCP
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In response to a diagram in Primer, Andre sent this comment. I'm posting
> to the interop group for further discussion.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Subbu
> 
>  > Thinking about the case when a consumer sets "cloneBeforeWrite" on a
>  > CCP (the deleted performBlockingInteraction()). Should the producer
>  > throw a fault? Allow the Write? Do a second clone? I believe our
>  > producer just forces a clone to happen which is what the original
>  > diagram suggested!
>  >
>  > Maybe something to raise & discuss in the next interop call?
> 
> 
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of 
> the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/leave_workgroup.php.
> 
>