[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp] Leasing questions
I would see more value in allowing a producer to declare that its policy does not allow a consumer to influence (i.e. set) scheduled destruction times but would leave this to a future "policy" framework, not v2. With this, I think the suggested returning lifetime information, even when a (v1) producer states wsrp:leasing is false seems strange. Would it not be better to just say wsrp:leasing is true and refuse to accept any setTerminationTime request (i.e by just leaving the scheduled destruction time unchanged in the reply)? Regards, Andre -----Original Message----- From: Subbu Allamaraju [mailto:subbu@bea.com] Sent: 03 July 2005 23:55 To: wsrp Subject: [wsrp] Leasing questions A v1 Producer could impose arbitrary lifetime restrictions on registrations and cloned portlets, and terminate(from the protocol sense) those after that lifetime. V1 Consumers cannot be aware of this lifetime. If such a Producer offers to support parts of v2, is it valid for it to not offer the leasing feature, but express scheduled destruction via the Lifetime parameter? That is, can the Producer return wsrp:leasing as false, but still return Lifetime within PortletContext (e.g. after a pbia) and RegistrationContext? My current understanding of the spec is that this is not valid, and I see value in allowing this. Regards, Subbu --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]