Title:
There is an advantage to the portlet developer to having a single [standard]
way to access this information vs. coding to N different cases. There are
many other places in the specification is which optional but useful information
is passed where the same observation [that it could be an extension] applies.
I believe because of the way the protocol has been designed we have a responsibility
in 1.0 to allow the consumer [to at a minimum] to communicate UI guidance
to the the producer for controlling Edit and Help modes. Turning your question
around, why should we tell every portlet developer if they are interested
in having their portlets provide a consistent L/F for mode controls they
must consult each portal they may be registered with for details and code
accordingly? This puts the developer in the unfortunate position of pre-guessing
all the consumer types the customer/adminstrator may accept bindings/registrations
from. I.e. My philosophy is that extensions should be used by developers
for "prefered" consumers for example an extended Mode. But extensions shouldn't
be used to manage function implied by the specification.
-Mike-
Eilon Reshef wrote:
Message
Is there any compelling reason not to treat this
as a vendor extension for v1.0?
With what we have today, portlets can always determine
based on the portal identity how to render the controls, if they wish to,
so the preferred layout for portal vendors can be published as a vendor-specific
set of guidelines.
Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 15:55
To:
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Alternative for supporting a control set
style
Not sure how I would evaluate this yet, but in the
interest of reducing the processing complexity for the portlet developer,
I would suggest the following tweaks on Mike's proposal:
Add the following optional field to MarkupParms:
[O] ControlLayout controlLayout
Where ControlLayout is:
ControlLayout
[O] string topControls[]
[O] string bottomControls[]
Where the values are constrained to specific values:
"wsrp-apply", "wsrp-cancel", "wsrp-ok", "wsrp-reset",
"wsrp-previous", and "wsrp-next"
and the order within each of the two arrays is the flow order in the orientation
in use on the page (i.e. normally left to right).
Rich Thompson
Michael Freedman
<>
03/20/2003 06:59 PM
To: WSRP
<>
cc:
Subject:
Re: [wsrp] Alternative for supporting a control set style
Sure. Maybe a better way of saying this is the
specification doesn't
provide a way for consumers to render these controls: In particular one
that processes the data and exits the mode.
-Mike-
Subbu Allamaraju wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Could you clarify what you mean by "the specification forces the
> portlet to render these controls"? Do you mean that WSRP forces
> portlets to always render these decorations? I can see that some
> portlets MAY want to render these (depends on the use case), but
I
> don't see how the spec requires that portlets render these controls
> always?
>
> Subbu
>
> Michael Freedman wrote:
>
>> As the conversation this morning was generally negative concerning
>> adding additional CSS styles that could represent a set of mode
>> controls I offer the following solution in lieu of working through
a
>> detailed design for something that will likely be rejected anyway.
>> Basically, the solution focuses on communicating to the portlet
>> "layout" information that a portlet could then use to make UI
>> decisions. Passing such information is optional. Using the
>> information is optional. However, portals that choose to pass
such
>> information can at least be ensured that the subset [hopefully
large]
>> that take it into consideration will yield a consistent UI within
the
>> portal. The argument for including this "special" layout information
>> continue to be that our specification forces the portlet to render
>> these controls however the consumer/portal has a vested interest
in
>> establishing a consistent L/F for these controls.
>>
>> Solution:
>> Add the following optional field to MarkupParms:
>> [O] ModeControlLayout modeControlLayout
>>
>> where ModeControlLayout is:
>>
>> ModeControlLayout
>> [R] Controls controls[]
>> [O] ControlOrientation controlOrientation
>> [O] ControlAlignment controlAlignment
>>
>> Where Controls, ControlOrientation and ControlAlignment are
>> restrictions on the string type that are contrained to specific
values:
>> Controls: "apply", "cancel", "ok", "reset", "previous", "next"
>> ControlOrientation: "top", "bottom"
>> ControlAlignment: "left", "center", "right"
>>
>> Members:
>>
>> * /controls: /This array defines the type and order of controls
the
>> portlet should use to be consistent with the Look/Feel
for this
>> consumers Mode controls. Portlets wishing to be consistent
will
>> render such controls, inconjunction with the other layout
rules,
>> preferrably by using WSRP predefined styles corresponding
to these
>> controls.
>> * /controlOrientation/: The value of this field tells the
portlet
>> the consumers preferred orientation for the controls mentioned
>> above. An orientation of "top" indicates a desire that
the
>> controls appear at the top [or first] of the modes rendition.
An
>> orientation of "bottom" indicates a desire that the controls
>> appear at the bottom [or last] of the modes rendition.
>> * /controlAlignment: /The value of this field tells the
portlet how
>> the consumer prefers the portlet align the controls mentioned
>> above. A "left" alignment indicates a desire the controls
be
>> rendered flush left with respect to the overall content/form.
A
>> "center" alignment indicates a desire the controls be rendered
>> centered with respect to the overall content/form. A "right"
>> alignment indicates a desire the controls be rendered flush
right
>> with respect to the overall content/form.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
