Re: [wsrp] (Required feature?) Transient property follow up

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

Your two questions are sufficiently
different that I suggest splitting the discussion into two threads.

Relative to making Transient Properties
a required feature. I would agree that for this feature to be truly useful,
portlet developers need to have it be dependable. Any arguments against
making it required?

If we do make this a required feature,
I don't think it is the lifetime that needs to be clarified. Rather, it
is prohibiting a claim for support that simply has a Consumer component
which always sets property values to null.

On a similar note, I have been thinking
lately that a better name for these would be "Session Properties".
Transient Properties is a bit too ambiguous and tends to raise the questions
about why both these and Navigation Parameters. No matter what additional
scopes are defined, what we have defined is semantically an extension of
the Portlet's session.

Rich

Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>

10/18/05 03:21 PM

To	wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[wsrp] Transient property follow up

A couple of questions/issues I came up with post F2F on
Transient properties:
1.        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?

2.        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-
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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