Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for issue #44 (setnew public params)

From
Rich Thompson <>
Date
2005-07-22T15:34:58+00:00
ID
Thread
Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for issue #44 (setnew public params)
Are you just saying that the URL encoding/decoding
rules are complex? I ask because I do not see the relationship between
this and making scoping choices. Once the information has been decoded,
I see no difference between dealing with it early in the URL processing
(i.e. before any portlet invocations) and later (after action/event processing).

As to decoding complexity, I think the
steps are straight forward:

1. Extract the parameter setting PPs
from the URL

2. Extract the value for this parameter

3. URL decode the value

4. Parse the resulting string as if
it were a querystring (hopefully using an existing utility method)

5. Step through the resulting array
of PPs and deserialize the values. Even for simple types, this may involve
conversions such as string-> int, but definitely could be more involved
for complex types the Consumer chooses to deserialize (as opposed to simply
treating in the XML serialized form and always receiving/forwarding the
XML without processing it).

Rich 

Subbu Allamaraju <>

07/22/05 10:37 AM

To



cc

Subject

Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Fw:
[wsrp] Additional use cases for issue #44 (set new public params)

My point is URL-encoding style makes it harder for
consumers to make 

broader scoping choices.

Subbu

Rich Thompson wrote:

> 

> Are you trying to make the following couple of points?

> 

> 1. Managing broader scopes (shared across more portlets/users and/or

> longer lived) is more complex than more limited scopes.

>  -> This is always true ... what would we be introducing that
increases 

> the issues involved or makes them harder to manage?

> 

> 2. There are differences in the roles of the Consumer and Portlet

> between this and the event model.

>  -> I believe both of these models have the portlet indicating
interest 

> in certain things and the Consumer determining whether or not to supply

> them. In both cases, this makes the Consumer the control point for

> coordination information. The current proposal actually moves the
models 

> closer as it allows the portlet to "publish" PP values,
which it can 

> already do for events.

> 

> Rich

> 

> 

> *Subbu Allamaraju <>*

> 

> 07/22/05 09:52 AM

> 

>                  

> To

>                  

> cc

>                  

> Subject

>                  Re:
[wsrp-interfaces] Fw: [wsrp] Additional use cases for issue #44 

> (set new public params)

> 

> 

>                  

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

>  > If the render URL is used and they are shared parameters
wouldn't the

>  > consumer have to be careful in calling portlets, since
it may effect

>  > other portlets interested in the parameter value. i.e.
order and which

>  > portlets i.e. to update cache

>  >   Rich -> It means that Consumers have to decode
the URL before invoking

>  > any portlets so that any shared PPs can be sent to all
interested 

> portlets.

> 

> Unlike the event model, in this case, Consumers decide who the

> interested parties are. From an implementation point of view, this
could

> mean scoping choices like (a) scoped to the current portlet, (b) scoped

> to the current request, (c) scoped to the current user's session,
(d)

> scoped to the current user forever, and (e) scoped to some/all users.

> 

> Due to security/privacy issues, Consumers may be forced go with (a)
or

> (b), which is limiting the model, IMO.

> 

> Subbu

>