wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Public parameters conformance statement?
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 14:40:13 -0400
Would you find it better if the sentence
read "In general, Portlets do not
store these items in any portion of their state as the Consumer supplies
the items on each invocation"?
I don't think conformance language is
appropriate as we can think of a case where storing the last public parameters
values does make sense (use as default value for any non-supplied item).
On the other hand, unless we think Portlets should generally manage defaulting
value in that manner, I wouldn't call it out in the spec either.
Rich
Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>
05/31/05 10:10 AM
|
To
| wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] Public parameters
conformance statement? |
|
Just to clarify, I find the sentence "Portlets
do not store these items
..." a bit unclear. Are we saying that "portlets don't generally
store
these parameters ...", or are we saying that "we don't recommend
that
portlets store ...".?
I suggest that we tigheten the language either with a conformance statement
"Portlets MAY NOT ..."
or a with a guideline
"We recommend that Portlet developers do not store ... for such and
such
reasons."
Regards,
Subbu
Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> Subbu raised a question about changing "Portlets do not store
these
> items in any portion of their state as the Consumer supplies the items
> on each invocation. In the absence of a Consumer supplied value for
a
> public parameter the Portlet listed in its portletDescription, the
> Portlet SHOULD use a default value" to say Portlets either SHOULD
NOT or
> MAY NOT store these items ...
>
> I considered this when adding this text, but decided against it as
the
> one reasonable use case I could imagine for a Portlet storing the
> current public parameters was to use them as the default values should
> the parameter not be supplied on subsequent invocations. Do people
think
> we should leave this as-is or make it a conformance statement?
>
> Rich
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs
in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]