The use case which needs us to keep
the model clean between portletInstanceKey and any prefixes is when the
Consumer wants to show two views from a single portlet instance (i.e. shared
runtime state). An example of this would be showing both a normal view
and a contextualized help view. Sharing the runtime state allows the help
view to relate to what the normal view is showing. The current model has
portletInstanceKey for namespacing within the Producer and the prefixes
for namespacing within the browser and I think it is important to keep
these concepts separated.
Rich
Richard Jacob <>
09/01/05 06:13 AM
To
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [wsrp-interfaces] interactionFieldPrefix
and namespacing form params
comments in <rj><rj>
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:
Rich Thompson
<
m>
To
08/31/2005 09:55
g
PM
cc
Subject
Re: [wsrp-interfaces]
interactionFieldPrefix
and
namespacing
form params
Comments in-line in red.
Rich
Michael Freedman
<>
To
08/31/05 02:11 PM
Richard Jacob
<>
cc
-o
pen.org
Subject
Re: [wsrp-interfaces]
interactionFieldPrefix and
namespacing form params
Comments inline in blue.
Richard Jacob wrote:
Hi all, (sorry, lengthy)
I think as the current proposal is in the spec, it is conceptually broken.
I have the following concerns/questions/comments concerning the field and
section 10.4 in the spec:
1. namespacing of form parameters in general
