I noticed that the change request number
for the email vote was wrong ... it should be #142.
Rich Thompson
"Danny Machak" <>
03/28/2003 11:25 AM
To:
WSRP <>
cc:
Subject:
[wsrp] Minutes for 27 March 2003 Meeting
Meeting started at 8:06 PST
====================================================================
Roll Call
Voting Members:
---------------------------------
Alejandro Abdelnur Sun
yes
Sasha Aickin Plumtree
no
Subbu Allamaraju BEA
yes
Olin Atkinson Novell
yes
Atul Batra Sun
yes
Amir Blich SAP
yes
Chris Braun Novell
no
Rex Brooks Starbourne
yes
T.J. Cox Novell
no
William Cox BEA
yes
Brian Dirking Stellent
no
Michael Freedman Oracle
yes
Ross Fubini Plumtree
yes
Richard Jacob IBM
yes
Jon Klein Reed-Elsevier
yes
Andre Kramer Citrix
yes
Alan Kropp Vignette Corporation
yes
Carsten Leue IBM
yes
Dan Machak Tibco
yes
Madoka Mitsuoka Fujitsu
yes
Petr Palas Moravia IT
yes
Raj Ramesh CommerceOne
no
Sunit Randhawa Fujitsu
yes
Thomas Schaeck IBM
yes
Gennady Shumaker SAP
yes
Yossi Tamari SAP Portals
yes
Gil Tayar WebCollage
no
Rich Thompson IBM
yes
Charles Wiecha IBM
yes
Total voting members: 29
Voting members in attendance: 23 (79%)
A quorum was present.
Members on Leave Of Absence
----------------------------
Nigel Ratcliffe Factiva
LOA
Joe Rudnicki U.S. Navy
LOA
Steven Smith Capitol College
LOA
Eric van Lydegraf Kinzan
LOA
====================================================================
The minutes from 3/20/03 were accepted
====================================================================
Schedule for finishing the spec (Thomas):
March 26 Deadline for submitting Change Requests
March 27 and April 3 calls to process these Change requests.
Email vote to commence April 10 and end April 16
The March 26 date is a hard cutoff date, and the other
dates are targets.
====================================================================
Summary of Change Requests
237b- Alternative for supporting a control set style DEFERRED(1.1)
240 - Remove Interface.UnsupportedLocale fault PARTIALLY ACCEPTED*
242 - Logic of 127 chars recommendation unclear.
ACCEPTED
243 - extensions field description
ACCEPTED
244 - Back door to declaring charsets for MarkupTypes ACCEPTED
245 - UserScope and caching
WITHDRAWN
246 - userProfileItemDescriptions rename
ACCEPTED
247 - Rename binding wsdl file
ACCEPTED
248 - Section CSS classes
ACCEPTED
249 - Class name length impact on performance
DEFERRED
250 - Only 1 performBlockingInteraction()
per End-User interaction?
ACCEPTED
* See details below
====================================================================
#237(b): Alternative for supporting a control set style
=> Discussion of how the Consumer can inform the Portlet of the
controls "normally" in use for the mode/window state.
The question here was to allow the Consumer to pass an ordered
list of controls to the Producer and to specify the layout of
those controls in the generated markup.
There was a general feeling that we should spend more time
considering this functionality in the next version of the spec.
There was to be two separate votes: one to decide whether
the Consumer specifies the order of controls, and if that
passes, on whether the Consumer can specify a layout of those
controls within the markup.
Vote results on Consumer specifying the order of controls:
yes: 3
no: 16
abstain: 4
Alejandro Abdelnur Sun
no
Subbu Allamaraju BEA
no
Olin Atkinson Novell
no
Atul Batra Sun
no
Amir Blich SAP
no
Rex Brooks Starbourne
yes
William Cox BEA
no
Michael Freedman Oracle
yes
Ross Fubini Plumtree
no
Richard Jacob IBM
no
Jon Klein Reed-Elsevier
abstain
Andre Kramer Citrix
no
Alan Kropp Vignette Corporation
yes
Carsten Leue IBM
no
Dan Machak Tibco
no
Madoka Mitsuoka Fujitsu
no
Petr Palas Moravia IT
no
Sunit Randhawa Fujitsu
abstain
Thomas Schaeck IBM
no
Gennady Shumaker SAP
no
Yossi Tamari SAP Portals
no
Rich Thompson IBM
abstain
Charles Wiecha IBM
abstain
There was no need to vote on the layout question.
Resolution: Deferred to 1.1
-------------------------------------------
The decision on 237 (a) was re-opened. There is a concern that
the Consumer would have to define a stylesheet for each locale
in order to address locale-specific labels.
====================================================================
#240: Remove Interface.UnsupportedLocale fault
=> Discussion has come down to either we should:
1. tighten up the semantics around locales (Consumer MUST
select from the set declared as supported through
the
PortletDescription, etc.) ... this would keep the
fault
definition.
2. Leave locales as a prioritized request and allow the
Portlet to return any locale ... this would remove
the
fault definition.
Resolution: Accepted in modifed form: go with option 2, but keep
the fault as a Specialization
of OperationFailed in
order to allow a portlet to support
the tight semantics.
====================================================================
#242: Logic of 127 chars recommendation unclear.
=> Suggestion looks to add clarity as to why the first
127 characters are recommended.
Resolution: Accepted.
====================================================================
#243: extensions field description
=> Request breaks the one sentence description of the extensions
field into 2 in order to clearly state that extensions elements
MUST come from a non-wsrp namespace.
Resolution: Accepted.
====================================================================
#244: Back door to declaring charsets for MarkupTypes
=> Should the spec comment on the mime type can include
optional declarations such as charset?
Resolution: Accepted. Spec will comment that the mime type should
not be used in this way.
====================================================================
#245: UserScope and caching
=> Is a Consumer prohibited or discouraged from caching content
when it does not understand the specified userScope?
Resolution: Withdrawn
====================================================================
#246: userProfileItemDescriptions rename
=> Consistency says this field should be
customUserProfileItemsDescriptions
Resolution: Accepted.
====================================================================
#247: Rename binding wsdl file
=> Noting that for consistency, this filename should use
the plural "bindings".
Resolution: Accepted.
====================================================================
#248: Section CSS classes
=> Question raised whether to define a parallel set of
classes that are table specific?
Resolution: Accepted
====================================================================
#249: Class name length impact on performance
=> Request by the "performance police" that the class
names be shortened.
Resolution: Deferred. Consider other names over the next week.
====================================================================
#250: Only 1 performBlockingInteraction() per End-User interaction?
=> What is the harm as long as the blocking semantics are
followed? Also, this conflicts with the required semantics
of receiving back an InvalidSession or InvalidCookie
fault message.
Resolution: Accepted: Redo the sentence so that a portlet will
only recieve one performBlockingInteraction()
per
request. Clarify language about
allowing for retries.
Semantics of performBlockingInteraction()
are similar
to synchronized methods.
====================================================================
Revist Tie Vote on CR 242?
There will be an email vote on this issue. Thomas will set this up.
====================================================================
Next Meeting:
Thursday April 3
8:00 am PST / 11:00 am EST / 5:00 pm CET
duration: 2 hours
====================================================================
Meeting officially adjournded at 10:09 AM PST
