Re: [wsrp] Public review comment: extensibility of URLs

[Richard Jacob <richard.jacob@de.ibm.com>]

I don't see how this is different to standard navigational state handling.
The consumer ist not required to replay any nav state which is stored
somewhere in the URL.

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


                                                                           
             Subbu Allamaraju                                              
             <subbu@bea.com>                                               
                                                                        To 
             08/14/06 06:16 PM         wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org           
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
                                                                   Subject 
                                       Re: [wsrp] Public review comment:   
                                       extensibility of URLs               
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           
                                                                           




In the case of render URLs, is there also a requirement on the consumer
to replay the queryParameters array on future getMarkup requests? If
not, first getMarkup upon URL activation would be different from
subsequent getMarkup requests, and this would break the replayability of
getMarkup requests.

Can you clarify?

Subbu

Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> Proposal updated with alternatives suggested on last week's call.
>
>
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interfaces/download.php/19634/ExtensionURLs.html

>
>
> This adds the following two alternatives (denoted by the "comment"
> coloring)
>   1. Move the queryParameters[] field to a well-known extension
>   2. Making the format of the Consumer rewriting and template forms of
> extensibility symmetric
>
> Rich
>
>
> *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS*
>
> 08/07/2006 07:51 AM
>
>
> To
>            wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
>
> Subject
>            Fw: [wsrp] Public review comment: extensibility of URLs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Apparently lost in the email server failure at OASIS.
>
> Rich
> ----- Forwarded by Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM on 08/07/2006 07:50 AM -----
> *Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM*
>
> 08/02/2006 10:47 AM
>
>
> To
>            wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
>
> Subject
>            Re: [wsrp] Public review comment: extensibility of URLs_Link_
> <
Notes://d01ml605/8525626C006C32DD/32547D7F59F9E7E38525613200556E77/A036D4E68C936DB3852571B80041DE80
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is a proposal to address this issue:
> _
>
__http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interfaces/download.php/19477/ExtensionURLs.html_

>
>
> Rich
>
> *Richard Jacob <richard.jacob@de.ibm.com>*
>
> 07/27/2006 07:59 AM
>
>
> To
>            wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
> cc
>
> Subject
>            [wsrp] Public review comment: extensibility of URLs
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For 2.0 we extended our WSRP extensions and added the ability to describe
> these.
> Ongoing with this, we anticipated that future proposals can be brought in
> early/easy before finessing 3.0 based on WSRP 2.0 extensions.
>
> My impression is that having "just" the WSRP 2.0 protocol payload
> extensions is not sufficient to solve/fully support future proposals.
> One main missing part might  be the extensibility of our WSRP URLs (and
> symmetrically templates). Our BNF is pretty fixed and not extensible.
> This might prevent furure proposals to work because an extension's
behavior
> can not be triggered via URL invocation.
> Therefor I would propose to extend our URLs in two ways:
> 1. extend the BNF to allow other URL types
> 2. extend BNF to allow custom URL parameters
>
> What needs discussion if we decide to accept the proposal is to decide
how
> Consumer's will  handle URL types they don't know and if/how Consumers
> propagate unknown URL parameters.
>
> 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>
>