OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [wsrp] Request scope support

Sorry I also missed the call, I agree with Richard and Andre. It seems the
producer/portlet should be able to handle this request cycle without the
consumer providing help. In normal operations the portlet would that either
the request cycle started with a pbia() or he() and can reload that
information during the render or be able to work with stored cache from the
pbia() or he(). As Andre points out this method could run into problems
during networking related issues, but due to optional nature of many
interfaces/action/reactions in wsrp this could effect any type of portlet
depending on the consumer.

For example an complex request lifecycle to a portlet may have been:

1. Pbia()
2. He()
3. He()
4. Render()

If the pbia() fails due to networking problems I would assume this would be
reported and the user would re-execute? If either 2 or 3 he() fails the user
would be non the wiser and the render would happen as if no event happened.
If the render() fails, the consumer may use cache to display the previous
markup? There seems to be lots of areas where the page could be
inconsistent. Does refreshing the page cause the lifecycle to happen again?

I'm not totally sure I understand the issue with the back button and
bookmark in relationship to lifecycle and adding helper id.


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 7:14 AM
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Fw: [wsrp] Request scope support

I think the current proposal strenghtens my arguments I made yesterday.
It's not quite easy to implement such a message correlation on the consumer
side and the value it gives seems quite limited to me.
We seem already to have troubles to clearly define what such a cycle would
be, what it would mean and at the same time keep the features that WSRP and
JSR168 offers in terms of bookmarkability back button support, etc.
If we defined the requestCycle flag what would the difference really be in
letting the Producer set internally flag (without the protocol need to
transfer it). The Producer can easily conduct the same information on the
incomming request, i.e. if a pbia() or he() occurs on a portlet instance
(use the portletInstanceKey here) then it can consider it a new request
I don't see the value in the protocol support to mimic this behavior.

Unfortunalty JSFdoesn't fit well into our model simply because it doesn't
clearly seperate action processing from rendering.
Now we seem to try to "retrofit" our protocol in such a manner that it can
act as a single phase protocol.
I think consequently this might break our intended behavior which we might
not have foreseen yet, examples here are cachability, back button,

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

             Rich Thompson                                                 
             m>                                                         To 
             01/18/06 11:09 PM                                          cc 
                                       [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 [attachment "RequestID_proposal.doc" deleted by Richard
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

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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]