Re: [wsrp-wsia] v0.90, comments and questions

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

intertwined with <rt/>

Rich Thompson




Alejandro Abdelnur <alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com>
01/23/2003 03:58 AM
 
        To:     wsrp-wsia <wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        [wsrp-wsia] v0.90, comments and questions


Hi everybody, Ive made it back.
<rt>Good to have you back! Hope it was a great vacation.</rt>

First of all, great job with v0.90. The flow of the specification is 
very easy to follow, concepts are explained in a very clear and simple 
way.

Following some comments and feedback on it. Some of my comments may have 
been already addressed (I did not have time to catch up with all the 
email discussions yet).

Alejandro

<COMMENT#>- P<PAGE#>/L<LINES#>

1- P10/L3
Consumer Configured Portlet it seems a misleading name, I would 
suggest something denoting that are consumer created entities instead.
<rt>Suggestions welcome ... open change request = #4</rt>

2- P10/L19-23
Should we add something like Although this does not imply that the 
portlet should not validate the End-User input.
<rt>added change request #28</rt>

3- P14/L27
Instead this functionality I would explicitly mention bookmarking 
functionality. At first it gave me the impression it was referring to 
navigational state.
<rt>added change request #29</rt>

4- P16/L29-P17/L9
It appears to me that these two sections are about the same thing. 
Wouldnt make sense to merge them in one section
<rt>added change request #30</rt>

5- P20/L1-3
I need somebody to refresh my memory. When did we agree on 255 as a 
maximum handle length?
<rt>Nov. F2F</rt>

6- P20/L38-P21/L19
Where and what for are we using Resource and ResourceList types?
<rt>They are the structures used to carry string values for other 
locales</rt>

7- P22/L1
MarkupType name for this type is misleading.
<rt>I've started to rename it several times, but never came up with a 
better name ... need a suggestion and then I'll open a change request</rt>

8- P22/L19
The portlet description should a ModelDescription element, shouldnt it?
<rt>We had decided not to automatically include this in the 
PortletDescription (issue #120)</rt>

9- P23/L27-42
If the userContext or the templates are stored in the session and the 
change within the span of a session, they should be resent, right? If 
so, we should clarify so.
<rt>added change request #31</rt>

10- P24/L19-23
Is this section saying that the value is always and array, and it could 
be of generic objects or just string? I assume so, but it is not clear 
to me.
<rt>It is trying to say that in general it is an array of objects. Since 
we expect it to frequently be a single string, an alternate form for 
passing this simpler type is provided.</rt>

11- P25/L24
ModelDescription does not convey the meaning of this type, I would 
suggest something like PropertiesDescription.
<rt>It is used to describe the model of something. Current two uses are 
Producer-specific registration data and Portlet-specific properties.

12- P27/L27
What is the purpose of the RegistrationState ?
<rt>It is a RegistrationContext without the handle ... suggestions for a 
better name?</rt>

13- P36/L4-11
What kind of escaping?
<rt>added change request #32</rt>

14- P36/L12-16
What is the purpose of markupBinary ?
<rt>Carrying markup types that do not map into a string field. Examples 
include an image and a DIME attachment (using currently proposed 
mechanisms)</rt>

15- P38/L10-15/L29-30
SessionContext, portletContext and markupContext elements are missing 
from the UpdateResponse IDL description.
<rt>They are encapsulated in the interactionResponse field ... decision 
was to use this format to clarify that blocking interactions return 
everything from the non-blocking case. adding change request to delete 
textual part that was missed (#33).</rt>

16- P40/L15
What is the behavior en the cache has expired, the consumer sends the 
validateTag to the producer and the producer says its OK? Is a new 
expiration sent with the response? It should, right?
<rt>added change request #34</rt>

17- P40/L26-33
In the case of a allUsers cache, the expiration mechanism is not 
clear. It says that if the MarkupParameter change the cache must be 
invalidated. Which one? How different locales are handled? Different 
markups?, etc ?
<rt>I read this to say that the markup may be cached and supplied to all 
users who would be using the same MarkupParameters. MarkupParameters does 
include locale, markupType, etc.</rt>

18- P42
Not that I fully agree with this (email to follow), but if this is the 
behavior we should explicitly mention that properties cannot be changed 
in the getMarkup call. I know that because of the method signature it is 
not possible, but as a clarification to the reader.
<rt>I presume you mean portletState can not be changed in getMarkup(). I 
would note that this is in the section dealing with Interaction Operations 
(i.e. 6.3).</rt>

19- P44/L1-15

I dont agree with the recommendation on not swapping from non-secure to 
secure and vice versa. There are app servers and web servers that 
support this. The Servlet spec allows implementations to support this.
Also, if we do not recommend this swapping, why do we provide the secure 
url-templates when we are insecure and vice versa?
<rt>secure to non-secure would be a security violation. The non-secure to 
secure is guidance ... if the Consumer "knows" it will work for the 
Producer, this direction of movement is less problematic.</rt>

20- P48/L17-19
How is solo different from maximized? I mea, practically, what would the 
consumer or producer do differently?
<rt>Examples raised included other portlets appearing minimized in 
maximized windowState vs not appearing in solo windowState.</rt>

21- P49/L16-17
What does it mean the last sentence?
<rt>If the Portlet requires a userCategory to work properly, the Producer 
should provide a default for when the Consumer does not supply one.</rt>

22- P49/L22-31
I think I understood the reason behind changing roles for user 
categories, not to imply a security related classification. But 
Administrator and User, they are security related classification.
<rt>see change request #5</rt>

23- P49/L32-24
How is different from a request with no user categories when both 
consumer and producer support them? I thing the Guest user category is 
redundant.
<rt>Do bring this up in the discussion about change request #5.</rt>

24- P60/L25-42
Could we change the wsrp-urlType syntax so it is name=value as all the 
other parameters? This would allow implementations that handle the type 
as a parameter not to have to parse the parameter string.
<rt>added change request #35</rt>

25- P65/L7-23
What is the purpose of the interaction parameters being generic to a 
producer? I dont get it.
<rt>Makes it simpler for some Consumers.</rt>



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