wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] NavState vs. Interaction State or what is the purpose ofinteraction state?
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2006 17:12:32 -0400
The model in the protocol is that navState
is what is required to properly render the portlet for the user. Interaction
state provides any additional state needed to process the action.
My analogy to the web world distinguishes
between state sent on the post and what is passed on a redirect to a get
request. Often the state on the post is a superset of what is on the get
request. Outside of the serialize/deserialize issues of getting these on
and off urls, I don't see why a web app would distinguish between them
internally. On the other hand, I do see significant benefits to distinguish
them relative to building the url and hence also within the WSRP protocol.
Rich
Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>
05/30/06 04:38 PM
|
To
| Subbu Allamaraju <subbu@bea.com>
|
cc
| wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] NavState vs. Interaction
State or what is the purpose of interaction state? |
|
See comments inline:
Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
> My interpretation is that nav state represents outcome of action
> processing, where as interaction state is usually an input to the
> action. It is not managed by the consumer beyond the current request.
>
> [MF] Your (first sentence) definition matches what I saw as the
> original intent before MarkupParams was passed to the PBI. I
don't
> really understand your second (sentence) point: navState must be
> explicitly output from a PBI for the consumer to continue to maintain
> it hance from a technical perspective there is now difference as to
> whether the inputs to PBI were interactionState or navState -- the
> operation still has to decide what values constitute the new navState
> and respond.
>
> Another key (and probably more important) difference is that
> interaction state could be different between two URLs generated by
a
> portlet, but both URLs will most likely carry the same nav state.
In
> this case, I can't think of a way of mapping interaction state as
> navigational state.
>
> [MF] Again, from a PBI point of view NavState is (now) both input
and
> output, in addition navState can change during the interaction
> processing, this is a superset of what interaction state does -- in
> the end the developer is merely encoding state into the ActionUrl
--
> hence it shouldn't be problemmatic to encode both PBI only state +
> PBI/render state into navState. Are you thinking that many developers
> end up modeling navState in explicit objects and hence anything that
> isn't needed to represent render state would need to come from a
> different abstraction? If so, how common is this in a web developer
> world where such state are usually seen as request parameters that
are
> then pushed into models/backing (managed) beans?
>
> Subbu
>
> Michael Freedman wrote:
>
>> Given the current state of the spec, I am trying to figure out
what
>> the purpose of interactionState is. Can anyone help? My
>> recollection is that originally interactionState was the PBI
>> equivalent of navigationalState (for getMarkup) prior to us adding
>> the "performance enhacement" that passed PBI MarkupParams
so
>> action/render response could occur in a single request. This
no
>> longer seems to be our intent as shown by the URL samples in section
>> 10.2.1.9. I.e. the second example expresses an actionURL
with both
>> navigationalState and interactionState. What is the new
model? I
>> can think of something like interactionState holds those values
that
>> augment the action processing while navigationalState holds those
>> values that augment the rendering process -- but that seems pretty
>> meaningless given that in most applications state is state that
you
>> compute with and render from. I.e. why wouldn't developers
merely
>> represent all such state as NavigationalState (particularly because
>> this form now has an opaque and non-opaque portion)? Since
navState
>> doesn't inherently carry forward at the end of an action/event,
you
>> must explicitly set it it seems to offer everything interactionState
>> does but in one object that spans all operations.
>> -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
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> 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]