Re: [wsrp] Issue #31: handleEvent or handleEvents?

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

As promised on the last conference call,
I have drafted changes to various places in the current draft of the spec
that reflect the guidelines reviewed during that call. For reference sake,
those guidelines are:

1. Portlets are loosely coupled components integrated onto the page by the Consumer.
2. Events are independent notifications that something has occurred, which receiving portlets may use to impact their state.
3. There are times when a Consumer will care what failures have occurred (e.g. for retry purposes).
4. Portlets should be able to indicate they also care about event processing failures.

• Comments: This guideline may be more problematic than the other three and is likely of lower priority.  WSRP does not want to require or define reliable messaging. Note: Spec already has a defined event for EventProcessingFailed as an empty notification of failure.

I have uploaded the proposed changes
to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/wsrp-coord/download.php/11928/handleEvents.doc.
Mostly this is language that tries to reflect the guidelines into the text
while changing handleEvent into a bulk operation. There is a note in the
section for defining an event Portlets would use to send failure information
back to the Consumer concerning Subbu's proposal to carry equivalent information
in a field. I see positives to both ways of carrying the information and
therefore drafted this alternative so as to prompt discussion of which
method is preferred.

I would also note that some of the discussion
could become quite a bit easier if we adopt Yossi's proposal (CR311) to
use the term "event driven portal application" to describe what
WSRP eventing enables (i.e. carry that terminology to other places in the
spec than just what CR311 proposes).

Rich

Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS

03/07/05 11:08 AM

To	wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	Re: [wsrp] Issue #31: handleEvent or handleEvents?

I was expecting to get back to your proposal as part of discussing solutions.
Since I saw the discussion fragmenting into various viewpoints with different
underlying assumptions, I thought it appropriate to step back and clarify
the eventing framework before discussing possible solutions. Hopefully
that will make the solution discussion less fragmented.

Rich

Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>

03/07/05 09:33 AM

To	wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
cc
Subject	Re: [wsrp] Issue #31: handleEvent or handleEvents?

I prefer a bulk operation for events, since it allows consumers to be 
more efficient.

On 11/01/04, I started a thread on error handling issues and posted a 
proposal. Here is the link: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/wsrp-coord/document.php?document_id=9885

Regards,

Subbu


Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
> This issue has been discussed under an email subject line of "
[wsrp] 
> handleEvent or handleEvents?". Before tailing off, this thread
came to 
> several guidelines for any solution moving this operation back to
a bulk 
> character:
> 
> 1. Portlets are loosely coupled components integrated onto the page
by 
> the Consumer.
> 2. Events are independent notifications that something has occurred,
> which receiving portlets may use to impact their state.
> 3. There are times when a Consumer will care what failures have occurred
> (e.g. for retry purposes).
> 4. Portlets should be able to indicate they also care about event
> processing failures.
> 
> Any additional comments before we move to drafting a solution?
> 
> Rich



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsrp-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: wsrp-help@lists.oasis-open.org