[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp] Request scope support
agreed, one other example. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards, Richard Jacob ______________________________________________________ IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development WSRP Team Lead & Technical Lead WSRP Standardization Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888 Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com "Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu. citrix.com> To Richard Jacob/Germany/IBM@IBMDE 01/19/06 12:19 PM cc "Rich Thompson" <richt2@us.ibm.com>, <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org> Subject RE: [wsrp] Request scope support That's broadly what I understood. I'm raising the issue that phases may not or seem to not complete because of network problems. Regards, Andre -----Original Message----- From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com] Sent: 19 January 2006 11:07 To: Andre Kramer Cc: Rich Thompson; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsrp] Request scope support The intent of this ID or flag was to support JSF or similar technologies which have a request scope attribute (because the don't seperate action processing from render processing) as a "convienience object". The idea brought up was to support such producer in determing when they could throw away such a request scoped object and reinitialize it. The assumption here is that because our protocol has two (three) distinct request whereas JSF has only one request, the JSF producer would have to store the request scoped beans in some other scope (e.g. session) and mimic the request scope. As I said in another answer I'm also not convinced about the value of this flag and am argumenting that it a) brings complications to the consumer implementation b) is not cleanly defined and c) can be done by the producer itself. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards, Richard Jacob ______________________________________________________ IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development WSRP Team Lead & Technical Lead WSRP Standardization Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888 Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com "Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu. citrix.com> To "Rich Thompson" 01/19/06 10:22 AM <richt2@us.ibm.com>, <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org> cc Subject RE: [wsrp] Request scope support Both request and reply messages may be dropped by the network (e.g. some proxy in a forwarding chain). The resulting uncertainty about the state of a action/event/render cycle implies that a producer could at best communicate it's intention to initiate a new cycle (e.g. via a monotonically increasing counter rather than a boolean). Having missed the call, I'm not clear on the benefits (if any) this would bring. At best a consumer could tell if it had recently seen an action or event the producer associates a render request (having the same producer set identifier) by keeping recent action (ids) in a consumer side cache? What about leveraging the existing ability to return markup from actions and events? At least this allows two phases (not three) to be collapsed. Here, events become a sort of "action" that (like actions) result in a new (consumer) cacheable rendering. Of course, this implies that producers don't just throw away such markup returns and that all events are independent of action request values. That may be a recommendation we should make (always make events independent of the initiating action)? Regards, Andre From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] Sent: 18 January 2006 22:10 To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsrp] Request scope support For those not on the Interfaces SC call today, the use cases regarding Producers who have a concept of a user-request scope needing some support from Consumers was discussed. There was a building consensus toward having the Consumer supply an ID which changes only on action or event processing, though most wanted to see a proposal in the context of the spec and think through what the impacts of those changes would be on reasonable Consumer implementations before deciding whether or not to include such support in v2. I agreed to draft such a proposal, but had a problem with the scenario of a End-User jumping to a different state of the page. This can easily happen via a bookmark, but also may happen when the browser's back button is pushed. This caused me to change the proposal to a style where the Consumer indicates to the Producer when it knows a new requestCycle is starting via a boolean rather than being more definitive by supplying an ID. I left the original attempt in (with a strike through the text) so that people can easily consider that option as well. Rich
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]