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

If the Consumer is free to reuse the
resource for multiple users (allowed for both registrations and portlets),
then allowing the Producer to base the lifetime on user related values
would introduce a fundamental clash.

Rich 

Michael Freedman <>

12/22/2004 01:25 PM

To



cc

Subject

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

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?