Re: [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia] [change request #245] UserScope and caching

Title: 

I've overlooked the consumerUserScopes element in the RegistrationData.
I withdraw the change request.

Alejandro

Rich Thompson wrote:

 

  The more general statement is that
this relaxation is only appropriate if we are confident that the
"perUser" scope is a proper subset of the semantics of all interesting
scopes that are likely to be defined. I doubt this is true and
therefore favor the statement as it currently is in the spec.  

  

  Another view on this is that since
the Consumer explicitly tells the Producer what userScopes it supports,
the Portlet/Producer specifying a different userScope is explicitly
stopping the caching of the markup and might be notifying the Consumer
of an interest in a particular userScope (presuming reasonable logging
is happening). 

  

Rich Thompson 

  

  

  
    
      

         

        
        Andre Kramer
<>
        
03/24/2003 07:10 AM 

        
                 

                To:      
  

                cc:         

                Subject:        RE:
[wsrp] [wsrp-wsia] [change request #245] UserScope and cachin        g
      

    
  
  

  

  

  

  Say I wanted to have a
"perApplicationUser" scope that specified how markup is to be handled
over performBlockingInteraction boundaries. With this proposal, I could
only use this if consumers supplied "perApplicationUser" as one of the
consumerUserScopes in RegistrationData on (optional in-band)
registration. [And I will have to advertise this scope as available
e.g. using a read-only registration property!] 

    

  regards, 

  Andre 

  -----Original Message-----

From: Rich Thompson [mailto:]

Sent: 21 March 2003 20:21

To: 

Subject: [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia] [change request #245] UserScope and
caching

   

  

Spec 0.92/Section 6.1.5/Page 30/Lines 43-47

  

Old text: "If the Consumer does not know how to process the specified
userScope, it MUST NOT cache the markup."

  

New text: If the Consumer does not know how to process the specified
userScope, it MAY NOT cache the markup or it SHOULD handled as
*perUser* userScope."

  

Reasoning: I think it is to strong to require not to do caching at all
when the perUser scope would be a safe fallback as it is private to the
user.