wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] lifetime of a portletInstanceKey
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 24 May 2006 07:15:50 -0400
You are right in that I was requested
to supply an update to the wording for wd17. Here is a copy of the new
descriptions (trying to use strikethroughs and bold text to highlight the
changes ... sorry to those where it doesn't show):
- portletInstanceKey: An opaque string, unique within the
RegistrationContext, which the Consumer MUST supply as a reference to its
use of the Portlet. The value which the Consumer supplies in the portletInstanceKey
field MUST remain constant for any one particular use of the Portlet.
The intent of this reference is to allow the Portlet, whenever needed,
to use this key to namespace multiple instances of itself within Producer
supplied mechanisms. Examples include namespacing within a Producer-defined
data sharing mechanism. Since this reference is a Key, its length is restricted
to 255 characters. Consumers SHOULD keep their portletInstanceKey values
as short as possible.
- namespacePrefix: This field provides a useful string for
the Portlet prefixing of tokens that need to be unique within the markup
of the aggregated page (e.g. JavaScript variables [A303],
HTML id attributes, etc.). In order to support items that could become
part of a URL activation, this token
is required to be
MUST remain constant for the lifetime of the portletHandle
portletInstanceKey and be the value used for both Consumer and Producer
namespacing (see [Section
10.3]).
Rich
Richard Jacob <richard.jacob@de.ibm.com>
05/24/06 06:42 AM
|
To
| Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] lifetime of a portletInstanceKey |
|
I can't remember that we ever argued against the wording
here.
I think the agreement is that we said the namespace prefix must (no spec
lang) be constant throughout the consuemer's usage a that particular
portlet handle usage.
So I guess we left this open for the editor :-) to add the correct wording.
I think a MUST is really better here. The semantic is the one we agreed
on
so why don't we make it a conformance statement.
The same applies to the instanceKey. I would presume the instanceKey is
anyway of the same value as the namespace prefix.
Or are the impls out there doing otherwise?
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
WSRP Technical Lead
WSRP Standardization
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com
Rich Thompson
<richt2@us.ibm.co
m>
To
wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
05/16/06 09:09 PM
cc
Subject
Re: [wsrp]
lifetime of a
portletInstanceKey
I don't see a reason not require portletInstanceKey also remain constant.
Is the use case for requesting this related to the chance that it might
change during a single End-User session? If so, I don't see a SHOULD adding
any value. The only value comes if the Producer can depend on this (most
likely do already). A SHOULD would simply point out that it can't be
depended on ... a MUST would be a different story.
I forget who argued against the namespacePrefix statement being a "MUST",
but "required" is still a strong requirement ... I certainly
wouldn't
change it to a SHOULD (makes it undependable and so Producers would have
to
code for it changing)! If we added a MUST statement relative to the
duration of the portletInstanceKey, I could see changing this into a MUST
while changing its tie to the portletInstanceKey rather than the
portletHandle.
Rich
Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>
05/16/06 02:25 PM
To
wsrp
<wsrp@lists.oasis-ope
n.org>
cc
Subject
[wsrp] lifetime of a
portletInstanceKey
At the JSR286 EG F2F, the question of whether portletInstanceKey is
required to be constant across the lifetime of consumer's usage is
required to be a the same or not came up.
Our impression is that this key should be a constant, but there is no
direct mention of this in the spec.
Should we add a statement like the following in Sec 6.1.3.
"The Consumer SHOULD supply the same value for the lifetime of its
usage
of a portlet in order to allow the producer to manage any state within
Producer supplied mechanisms."
Similarly, for the namespacePrefix field, any reason not to make the
following statement to use a conformance term like SHOULD?
"In order to support items that could become part of a URL activation,
this token is required to be constant for the lifetime of the
portletHandle and be the value used for both Consumer and Producer
namespacing (see [Section 10.3])."
Subbu
_______________________________________________________________________
Notice: This email message, together with any attachments, may contain
information of BEA Systems, Inc., its subsidiaries
and affiliated
entities, that may be confidential, proprietary, copyrighted
and/or
legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the individual
or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended recipient,
and have received this message in error, please immediately return this
by email and then delete it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]