wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Namespacing revisited
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 10:56:21 -0400
I don't think it is. It slipped into
the original proposal simply because it was there on the URL rewriting
side (where it is needed).
Anyone see a need for requirement #4
(locating the end of the token)?
Rich Thompson
| Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>
06/13/2003 10:48 AM
|
To:
wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:
Re: [wsrp] Namespacing revisited |
Rich
Could you clarify why (4) is a requirement?
Subbu
Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> Andre makes a good point ... we should step back and agree on the
> requirements before we spend more time debating solutions.
>
> My original post looked at the following being the requirements for
a
> constant prefix that indicates a namespacing need:
> 1. Clarity of the item after indicating need to be namespaced
> 2. Ability to directly debug scripts containing namespaced
items
> (functions and variables)
> 3. Consumer only needs to execute a single parse on the markup
to do
> all rewriting (URL and namespacing)
> 4. Ability of a Consumer to find the end of the token
>
> We should debate whether all these are required and whether anything
> important has been missed.
>
> I agree that #4 was inadvertent and likely unnecessary. I think the
> first three have been stated as needed by various communities and
> therefore should be accommodated.
>
> Rich Thompson
>
>
> *Andre
Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>*
>
> 06/13/2003 05:02 AM
>
>
> To: "'Subbu
Allamaraju'" <subbu@bea.com>, WSRP OASIS
> <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc:
> Subject: RE:
[wsrp] Namespacing revisited
>
>
>
>
> Rich made two assumptions that I'm not sure about:
>
> - the script needs to be executable as is (so we can't use "-"
for
> Java). We can't guarantee this for all scripting langs.
>
> - we need to be able to find the end of the token being re-written
> (which we can do using urlType=namespace today)
>
> If we give up on the above requirements (for script writing) then
a
> simple reserved token of "wsrp-rewrite-" would do, and be
much simpler
> for script authors to use.
>
> I would then still keep the current urlType=namespace scheme, as this
> allows better token handling for cases when we do need to find the
end
> of the token (using a space is going to be to fragile in my opinion
and
> I happen to like the ?&= query string format, even if I have to
remember
> the / at the end :-)
>
> regards,
> Andre
>
> PS With this we only need the namespacePrefix field to be required
for
> templates / producer writing which it is already.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Subbu Allamaraju [_mailto:subbu@bea.com_]
> Sent: 13 June 2003 04:47
> To: WSRP OASIS
> Subject: Re: [wsrp] Namespacing revisited
>
> >
> > IMO, wsrp-rewrite?.../wsrp-rewrite should be restricted
for the purposes
> > of constructing URLs.
>
> I second this. The section on URLs would be simpler if the namespacing
> issue is dealt with separately.
>
> A reserved token (e.g., wsrp-namespace) for the prefix would be lot
> simpler for both portlet developers and consumers.
>
> Subbu
>
>
> > Using a prefix it's much more readable, #PREFIX#doNothing().
And note
> > that the consumer does not need to generate a unique prefix
upfront, it
> > could handle a special token and resolve the prefix at
consumer
> > rewriting time.
> >
> > We could also define a wsrp-namespace$ token to be used
as prefix when
> > doing consumer rewriting. I wouldn't use the 'wsrp-rewrite$'
(as
> > proposed by Rich) as this is an overload that may create
confusion.
> >
> > But if I'm doing producer rewriting, I need the namespacePrefix.
That's
> > way I say it should be a required field.
> >
> > Alejandro
> >
> > On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 10:37 AM, Rich Thompson
wrote:
> >
> >
> > It was brought up on today's call that the
primary target for
> > namespacing is not particularly well served
by the current design.
> > lets consider a simple JavaScript function:
> >
> > function doNothing() {}
> >
> > To namespace this today, one has to rewrite
it as:
> >
> > function
> >
> wsrp-rewrite?wsrp-urlType=namespace&wsrp-token=doNothing/wrsp-rewrite()
> > {}
> >
> > Points made about this rewrite:
> > 1. Rather unwieldy and certainly not
obvious that the function
> > name was originally "doNothing"
> > 2. It is not valid to run as is and
this makes testing much more
> > difficult
> >
> > The question was raised as to whether we
could easily specify a
> > constant prefix token that this author could
use that would leave
> > the code both readable and testable while
not requiring the Consumer
> > to do two parsing passes. Here is a proposal:
> >
> > 1. Define "wsrp-rewrite$" as a
token indicating that a token
> > requiring namespacing follows
> > 2. Require that a space (%20) follow the
token to cleanly delimit
> > the end of the token needing namespacing.
> >
> > The author would rewrite our example function
as:
> >
> > function wsrp-rewrite$doNothing ()
{}
> >
> > This almost works. The problem is that JavaScript
names can not
> > contain a "-" character. It would
work if our delimiting token was
> > changed to wsrp_rewrite so that this example
becomes:
> >
> > function wsrp_rewrite$doNothing ()
{}
> >
> > and the Consumer URL rewriting expression
changes to:
> >
> >
> >
> wsrp_rewrite?wsrp-urlType=value&name1=value1&name2=value2.../wsrp_rewrite
> >
> >
> > Rich Thompson
> >
> >
>
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> _http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/members/leave_workgroup.php_
>
>
You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/members/leave_workgroup.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]