RE: [wsrp] comment regarding interactionState

["Kropp, Alan" <Alan.Kropp@vignette.com>]

I believe that's the intent.  



-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Kramer
To: 'wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org'
Sent: 5/30/2003 2:54 PM
Subject: RE: [wsrp] comment regarding interactionState

Would this then not just be equivalent to navigationalState? We need a
way to pass up data *without* determining what is sent in future actions
- which is what interactionState provides now?

regards, 
Andre 

-----Original Message----- 
From: Kropp, Alan [ mailto:Alan.Kropp@vignette.com
<mailto:Alan.Kropp@vignette.com> ] 
Sent: 30 May 2003 19:28 
To: 'wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org' 
Subject: [wsrp] comment regarding interactionState 


We allow for interactionState to be sent to the Producer in 
InteractionParams, yet there is no corresponding response that contains
the 
portlet's most recent value for this field. 

I think this needs to mirror how we handle navigationalState:  the 
UpdateResponse should carry two state fields:  navigationalState, and 
interactionState. 

In terms of conformance:  the portlet MAY choose to set a value for 
interactionState, in which case the Consumer MUST return it on
subsequent 
action invocations only.  

Alan 


  

You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/members/leave_workgrou
p.php
<http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/members/leave_workgro
up.php>