RE: [wsrp] comment regarding interactionState

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

I guess my confusion stems from the fact that the portlet can construct an
url template that includes wsrp-interactionState, but what is the Consumer
(if it's the URL rewriter) expected to replace this parameter with?  Unlike
with navState, this field's expected value is never directly conveyed from
the portlet to the Consumer (i.e., via a response from
performBlockingInteraction).

What is the Consumer expected to replace this with when rewriting the URL?

Alan
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: 6/2/2003 11:52 AM
Subject: RE: [wsrp] comment regarding interactionState


The purpose of interactionState is to pass a set of opaque parameters to
performBlockingInteraction. Any state impact lasting longer than the
request needs to be either in navState or portletState (depending on how
long it is to last). The current semantics are that interactionState is
only passed when the user activates an URL that specifies a value for
wsrp-interactionState. For something targeted as opaque action
parameters, this seems like the right semantics. 

Why would we want a second opaque parameter with the same semantics as
navState? The only reason navState has semantics beyond interactionState
is to handle page refresh (including the case of the user interacting
with a different portlet on the page). 

Rich Thompson 



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


06/02/2003 12:02 PM         
        To:        "'Andre Kramer '" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>,
"''wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org' '" <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org> 
        cc:         
        Subject:        RE: [wsrp] comment regarding interactionState




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> 


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