Re: [wsrp] Issue #33: Pass UserContext to lifetime operations?

I agree with Rich's point that Consumer should be the point of control. 
I don't see a need for "personalization" of these operations.

Subbu


Michael Freedman wrote:
> So I [producer] can't have policies that assign different lifetimes 
> passed on user category or profile information?  Certainly not a common 
> use but why would we prevent?
>      -Mike-
> 
> Rich Thompson wrote:
> 
>>
>> I would argue against the lifetime operations taking a user context as 
>> the underlying resources are not user-specific and the Consumer is the 
>> right control point for deciding whether or not the end-user is 
>> allowed to see or impact the lifetime.
>>
>> Rich
>>
>>
>> *Andre Kramer <>*
>>
>> 12/22/2004 10:34 AM
>>
>> 	
>> To
>> 	Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "''" 
>> <>
>> cc
>> 	
>> Subject
>> 	RE: [wsrp] Issue #33: Pass UserContext to lifetime operations?
>>
>>
>>
>> 	
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I had considered portlet handle leasing ops taking in a user context 
>> but then the question of whether a consumer leases on a per user basis 
>> would arise. The call arg would then typically set to null, as seems 
>> to happen a lot given the questions surrounding userContexts in 
>> operations. But easy to add if we think it is required for consistency.
>>  
>> Regards,
>> Andre
>>  
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Rich Thompson [mailto:] *
>> Sent:* 21 December 2004 16:55*
>> To:* *
>> Subject:* [wsrp] Issue #33: Pass UserContext to lifetime operations?
>>  
>>
>> Issue # 33
>> Spec section:
>> SubCommittee: Interfaces
>> Owner: Andre
>> Description: Should the RegistrationLifetime and PortletLifetime 
>> portTypes' operations take a userContext for consistency?
>>  
>>  
> 
>