Richard Jacob wrote:
> well, depends on what really is externalized.
> Your examples refers to the installation/configuration.
> But it might "only" be the portlets private state and that's it.
> So accessing such a CCP with missing state might result in the same state
> as interacting with a POP. That's what I would expect.
I agree on the expectation. But the producer may not know what POP a CCP
corresponds to in the absence of state.
Subbu
>
> 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:
>
>
>
> Subbu Allamaraju
> <>
> To
> 01/12/06 04:28 PM
> g
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [wsrp-interfaces] Should
> portlets/producers indicate that
> they push out persistent state?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Consumers will be breaking the spec (since consumers are required to
> supply state) if they don't resend the state. On the producer's side,
> graceful degradation may be possible, provided the producer maintains
> some amount of persistent state (e.g. which cloned handle maps which POP
> handle). But I suspect graceful degradation would be hard to
> implement/support.
>
> Subbu
>
>
> Andre Kramer wrote:
>> There is also the question of graceful degradation: if the consumer does
>> not return state pushed to it, does the producer/portlet still offer a
>> minimal service? If this is generally desirable then maybe the extra
>> metadata is needed less?
>>
>> Regards,
>> Andre
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Jacob [mailto:]
>> Sent: 12 January 2006 10:54
>> To:
>> Subject: [wsrp-interfaces] Should portlets/producers indicate that they
>> push out persistent state?
>>
>> I have a question regarding persistent state pushing to the Consumer.
>> This can either be the state in the RegistrationContext or in the
>> PortletContext.
>> Currently the Producer can push its state whenever it likes to, and the
>> Consumer requires to handle it accordingly (return it back, persist it).
>>
>> Shouldn't we have metadate that indicates the Producer/Portlets
>> preference
>> to push out state?
>> In that case the Consumer can choose to not use such a portlet.
>> I see two use cases for it:
>> 1.) the Consumer can't/doesn't want to persist the data be it for
>> technical/resource reasons or legal/privacy reasons
>> 2.) the Consumer "shares" the handles with another Consumer/Machine. We
>> discussed such scenarios when we discussed import/export.
>> From the Producer's perspective this is still the same Consumer (unless
>> some security mechanism says otherwise), so protocol-wise this is
>> perfectly
>> legal.
>> However if the Producer chooses to push out persistent state, such
>> scenarios won't work unless the different "Consumers" sync themselves in
>> some manner.
>>
>> So what I'm asking for is basically two things:
>> 1.) add metadata to the ServiceDesc saying that the registrationContext
>> might contain state
>> 2.) add metadata to the PortletDesc saying that the portlet intends to
>> push
>> out state in the PortletContext
>>
>> 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:
>
>
>
