wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] (Required feature?) Transient property follow up
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:42:42 -0400
But the equivalence would only hold
if the scope is wsrp:portletSession. Since we are defining a scope related
to the End-User's interactions with the Consumer, I would think any requirements
should relate to those interactions rather than the interactions of the
Consumer with the portlet. Perhaps something like:
The Consumer MUST initiate the wsrp:consumerSession
scope whenever a new set of interactions with an End-User are initiated
and MUST NOT terminate this scope until either those interactions cease
or resources related to the End-User's interactions are released due to
inactivity. The Consumer MUST NOT automatically null out all settings of
transient property values within the wsrp:consumerSession scope.
I think this pair ends up making the
feature required of Consumers, provides a distinct definition of the scope
and makes transient properties usable by portlet developers.
Any thoughts on renaming this feature
to "Session Properties"?
Rich
Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>
10/19/05 03:33 PM
|
To
| Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] (Required feature?) Transient
property follow up |
|
For the portlet that is deciding to use the session Transient
property as an alternaitve to storing state it might otherwise store in
a portletSession wouldn't there be an interest in whether or not there
is a relationship in how the consumer manages these two? My point
in making them equivalent is that portletSession becomes opaque or private
session data while consumerSessionScoped transient property become public
session data.
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
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
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]