Some comments.
Subbu
Stefan Hepper wrote:
> Hi Mike,
> here my list of issues:
>
> - requiredScope, preferedScope
> should be removed, the portlet should only be specifying one scope, the
> consumer should be free to upgrade this scope to one that provides the
> same semantics but may last longer then the requested scope
I agree. It would be simpler and more deterministic to not have these two.
> - wsrp:consumerRequest
> I don't think this is a useful shared state, I think portlets should use
> the nav state instead
But navState can not be used to share state across portlets. I see some
use for this scope.
> - wsrp:consumerSession, wsrp:consumerApplication
> can we combine these two into one state to make things less complex for
> portlet programmers? Something like wrsp:consumerContext. This scope
> should be per user and should have at least the lifetime of the current
> user session, but the consumer is free to extend the lifetime beyond the
> current user session.
> Also I see problenms in allowing render links to influence these scopes.
> I would only allow to write to these scopes as return of a pbia or he.
> This may be a reason to create two seperate concepts: something like the
> public params that can also be influenced via URLs and a consumerContext
> that can be only changed as result of a pbia or he.
Could you elaborate on why it would be hard to update these properties
via URLs?
Subbu
>
>
> Michael Freedman wrote:
> > This Thuirsday, we will continue our conversation on transient
> > properties. To better focus this discussion I would like to get a an
> > understanding of which areas of the proposal cause concern. This not
> > only will allow us to focus our discussion but will enable me to
> > evaluate whether there is a basic consensus on the core model or not.
> > Can you please send this list your specific area's of concern (and why
> > you have this concern)? Where applicable, please be as specific as
> > possible -- if you are concerned about the notion of supporting scopes
> > in general you might list the issue as "scopes" and go on to decribe why
> > you think transient properties shouldn't have a defined scope. If you
> > have an issue with a specific scope -- say wsrp:consumerApplication you
> > would list it specifically and describe what your concern is.
> > -Mike-
> >
> >
> >
>
>
