RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#94] getMarkup() able to modify/return state

[Gil Tayar <Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com>]

Well, the current "state of an entity" is problematic as the "entityState"
is a persistent thing. A better proposal would be:
"for rendering the current navigational state of the refHandle". The
problematic use of "refHandle" is due to the fact that we do not have a name
for the concept of what was called long ago the "runtime entity", which is
what the refHandle is a handle for. (which is why "refHandle" is so generic
- maybe change it to "refHandlePointerId" to really capture all the generic
words :->)

The best way to approach this would be to add to the spec the concept of the
runtime entity, who's handle is given by "refHandle", and change the
refHandle to "runtimeEntityHandle".

As to the other questions - I think the spec is OK on that regard, meaning
that the only thing that getMarkup can change is the response.

Gil

-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar [mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Thu, September 19, 2002 08:50
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-wsia] [I#94] getMarkup() able to modify/return state


Topic:  interface
Class:  Minor Technical
Title:  getMarkup() able to modify/return state
Document Section: 6.1 Markup Operations
Description:
I keep hearing questions and discussions that raise this topic. The current
spec says that the getMarkup() operation is "for rendering the current
state of an entity". Is this the intended/agreed semantics? May the request
to render cause a protocol visible state change? Current spec limits any
such changes to the establishment of a session. Is this sufficient?
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

Discussion:

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>