wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Transient property follow up
- From: Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>
- To: wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:21:43 -0700
A couple of questions/issues I came up with post F2F on Transient
properties:
- Should the meta data that describes transient properties be
improved to support a notion of aliasing?
Is there value in distinguishing between the name the portlet receives
the transient property as and the set of [coordination] names that
identify this property to the consumer? The use case is two [sets of]
portlets that are developed independently each with their own
namespace/vocabulary for properties sometime afterwards understanding
that coordination could also occur between them because the property
[semantics] are the same. Current model requires the one/both to
change its implementation with potential backwards compatibility
impacts. We could however offer another field in the
TransientPropertyDescription that is an array of aliases which identify
other identities of the same property. Should we add this to our 2.0
design?
- By defining a specific/known duration for consumerSession scope
can we make this a required feature in 2.0?
My understanding from our F2F discussions is that producers couldn't
rely on transient properties to hold internal state because though we
required support for this feature we said it was valid for the consumer
to claim support by merely always sending/representing a null value
[i.e. value always out of scope]. I think this is a severly restricts
the value of transient properties and makes them more akin to
NavigationalParameters. Since all we are defining is the
consumerSession Scope and that we though unstated this scope is
implied/must exist in WSRP 1.0 to support managing portletSessions can
we stengthen our proposal by requiring that a transientProperty of
consumerSessionScope must be maintained for the exact amount of time
that the consumer maintains the portlet's session assuming that portlet
session has an infinite lifetime from the perspective of the producer?
[I.e. portlet session timeouts aren't a factor in this]. By equating
this transientProperty scope to the same scope that the consumer
manages portletSessions on we create an equivalence between the
management of public session state and opaque session state meaning the
portlet can now depend on the public state.
-Mike-
|
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]