OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: Re: [wsrp][interfaces]: Portal Usage Scenario

My reply may not have been clear on this, I was not referring to 
individuals when I've said that (b) is a subset of (a), I was referring 
to the levels. Looking at the definition of (b), from the portlet 
perspective, (b) level is a subset of (a) level.

I have concerns on putting this as a requirement. As I've written 
yesterday, a portal could definitely leverage a portal framework for its 
administration (and Page/Portal Designer) but I don't like that being 

Also, I do not like the idea of a portlet being responsible for its own 
administration as this could include delegated administration and it 
would the portlet, not its context, the one deciding what a given 
administrator can do.

I'm more comfortable with the idea of providing metadata together with 
the portlet.

The metadata approach does not preclude a WSRP producer to offer 
administration of application portlets through WSRP-producer portlets 
that process the metadata and create the proper content. This would 
allow a WSRP producer to use the 'usage interface' for administration 
but it would be done using WSRP producer specific administration 
portlets different from the application portlets. And it would not 
require to do this through a portlet.



Michael Freedman wrote:

> Two potential reasons:
>     a) in practice we find that the individuals given the Admin role 
> and those given the Page design role are distinct users vs. being a 
> pure subset.
>     b) We have (and would like to continue to) provide page design 
> operations via the "usage interface".
>    -Mike-
> Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
>> Mike,
>> I agree with (a) Administration and (c) End User level definitions as 
>> you are describing them.
>> I think that all (a) Administration functionality should be done 
>> outside of the 'usage interface'.
>> What is the rationale not to see (b) Page/Portal Designer as a subset 
>> of (a) Administration when from the portlet perspective it's just a 
>> further configuration of portlet settings ?
>> Regards.
>> Alejandro
>> Michael Freedman wrote:
>>>Can you clarify what you mean by "Administrator"?  In our world we have (at
>>>least) three levels:
>>>     a) Administrator
>>>     b) Page/Portal Designer
>>>     c) End User
>>>Your use of Administrator seems to map closest to our (a) Administrator.  [see
>>>definitions below]. When others have talked about it I have mapped to (b)
>>>Page/Portal Designer.  I can see how (a) might be done out of the "usage
>>>interface".  Its less obvious to me the value to do (b) outside the "usage
>>>The Administrator is responsible for registering/adding portlets to the portal.
>>>The administrator can configure portlets (change those configuration settings
>>>that are modifiable).  Changes made here effect all portlet instances created
>>>here after.
>>>The Page/Portal Designer is responsible for developing the initial structure of
>>>the portal for a collection of end users.  In doing so the Page/Portal Designer
>>>is capable of modifying portlet settings.  Portlet settings may effect either
>>>portlet state or behaviors of a specific portlet instance (though its just as
>>>easy to imagine that this instance is a template for future instances).
>>>Commonly, these settings include the End user customization attributes allowing
>>>the Page/Portal Designer to preset defaults for the End-Users.
>>>End User is responsible for personalizing the Portal.  In doing so they are
>>>capable of personalizing portlets.
>>>   -Mike-
>>>Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
>>>>Tamari, Yossi wrote:
>>>>>Hi Thomas,
>>>>>I don't think that the fact the portal can set the portlet's properties
>>>>>means that there can be no plug-and-play.
>>>>>The Portlet can advertise its properties and their type (XML-Schema like) in
>>>>>its meta-data, and the portal can use this meta-data to automatically
>>>>>display a set-properties page. While this page can not be as customized as
>>>>>the portlet generated page, it has the advantage of creating a uniform
>>>>>set-properties look and feel throughout the portal.
>>>>>I'm just saying both options have their merits, and we should regard both.
>>>>>      Yossi.
>>>>I agree with Yossi. We should investigate/consider other alternatives.
>>>>This is somehow related to an issue I've brought up in the WSRP/security
>>>>conf call last week about "...separation of interfaces and roles for
>>>>administrative vs. non-administrative usage. ..."
>>>>I see some key problems on the approach we are heading to, where we do
>>>>not have a separate administration interface from the regular usage
>>>>interface. Administration and personalization are very different beasts.
>>>>Using a definition from a colleague, personalization of a component is
>>>>when a user customizes the behavior of the component for himself; while
>>>>administration is when a user customizes the behavior of the component
>>>>for one (other than her) or more users.
>>>>I see personalization being done through the usage interface, as most
>>>>portal frameworks -if not all- do it today.
>>>>I see as a possibility to do administration of portlets through
>>>>portlets, not the same portlet but a special administration portlet
>>>>provided by the WSRP service.
>>>>I have problems seeing administration functionality being done through
>>>>the usage interface of the same portlet is to be administered.
>>>>Personalization is about a given portlet instance for a given user.
>>>>Administration may have to deal with roles, groups, templates, etc.
>>>>In my opinion, it will be very hard to implement a portlet to do this
>>>>administration unless the portlet is knowledgeable of the WSRP service
>>>>configuration data model. A portlet knows about the business logic it
>>>>produces presentation logic for. A portlet knows about the
>>>>configuration/personalization parameters it needs. But a portlet does
>>>>not necessary know how the container hosting the portlet organizes and
>>>>stores the configuration or personalization parameters handled to the
>>>>Another problems that I see are:
>>>>* The administration interface should allow an administration tool to be
>>>>built using portlets, but it must not impose additional requirements on
>>>>the administration framework.
>>>>* Administration should not require the administrator to put the portlet
>>>>in his portal page in order to administer it.
>>>>* It should be the responsibility of the WSRP service (or the portal),
>>>>but not of the portlet, to manage the details of delegated administration.
>>>>* Security of the usage and administration interface may be different.
>>>>* It's delegated to the portlet to decide if a user can do
>>>>administration or not.
>>>>* The usage interface may have different scalability requirements than
>>>>the administration interface.
>>>>Finally, there are different specifications that address management of
>>>>resources in distributed environments such as CIM, SMNP, JMX (Java
>>>>specific). Also, in OASIS there is a proposal for a Management Services
>>>>TC. We should investigate if any of them are suitable.
>>>>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>>>>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC