We are expecting this technical note
to provide guidance on how to map various JSR168 issues into the WSRP protocol.
Having preferences of type string[] mapped in a particular way is an example
of such a mapping. In the absence of guidance, Producers should expect
the only construct a Consumer will map into an array is a schema defined
array construct. The purists would probably even argue that any other mapping
would be an error.
Rich
Subbu Allamaraju <>
11/10/2003 09:05 AM
To
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Subject
Re: [wsrp-interop] Multi-valued
portlet properties
Are we expecting the JSR168 note to provide guidance on interop issues?
I hope not. To avoid future compatibility (1.0) and interop issues, it
would help to resolve this ASAP.
Regards,
Subbu
Rich Thompson said the following on 11/10/2003 05:58 AM:
>
> Since the only place we know of this being an issue is JSR168's use
of
> string[] for preference types, I think we should hold off this
> discussion until the joint effort at producing a Technical Note
> seeking to ensure interoperability across WSRP of two disparate JSR168
> implementations gets going.
>
> Rich
>
>
> *"Ross Fubini" <>*
>
> 11/10/2003 02:30 AM
>
>
> To
> "Subbu
Allamaraju" <>, <>
> cc
>
> Subject
> RE:
[wsrp-interop] Multi-valued portlet properties
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'd say we should use solution b), sending two values with the same
> name, as a recommended practice for the 1.0 specification. We
should
> consider this change for 2.0 when we cast a close on preference storage.
>
> ross
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Subbu Allamaraju [mailto:]
> Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2003 8:55 AM
> To:
> Subject: [wsrp-interop] Multi-valued portlet properties
>
>
>
> To continue the discussion on the multi-valued portlet properties
issue
> that I brought up a couple of weeks ago, here is a summary of options:
>
> a. Use the predefined StringArray type. Producer introduces a custom
> wrapper type to hold StringArray. Consumers introspect the response
to
> find the wrapper type.
>
> b. Add multiple Property elements for each value of a property. So,
if a
> property "p1" has two values "v1" and "v2",
the consumer will receive
> two Property elements one with value "v1" and the other
with value "v2"
> and both with the same name "p1".
>
> Arguments for (a) - clean, typed
> Arguments against (a) - needs a schema extension, can't interoperate
> without introspection
>
> Arguments for (a) - typed, does not require a schema extension
> Arguments against (b) - multiple properties with the same name might
> confuse consumers (although, with the current schema, it is perfectly
> legal to send multiple properties with the same)
>
> Regards,
>
> Subbu
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
