[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Public parameters conformance statement?
Rich Thompson wrote: > > 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"? That sounds better, but I'm still not clear on the intent. It sounds speculative, and does not seem to add value. On a related note, since the Consumer may or not may supply all/some public parameters with each request, shouldn't we add a statement/guideline that portlets be prepared to work reasonably well even when those parameters are not supplied? Subbu > 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>* > > 05/31/05 10:10 AM > > > To > wsrp <email@example.com> > 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 > >