Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> Would you find it better if the sentence read "In general, Portlets do
> not store these items in any portion of their state as the Consumer
> supplies the items on each invocation"?
That sounds better, but I'm still not clear on the intent. It sounds
speculative, and does not seem to add value.
On a related note, since the Consumer may or not may supply all/some
public parameters with each request, shouldn't we add a
statement/guideline that portlets be prepared to work reasonably well
even when those parameters are not supplied?
Subbu
> I don't think conformance language is appropriate as we can think of a
> case where storing the last public parameters values does make sense
> (use as default value for any non-supplied item). On the other hand,
> unless we think Portlets should generally manage defaulting value in
> that manner, I wouldn't call it out in the spec either.
>
> Rich
>
>
> *Subbu Allamaraju <>*
>
> 05/31/05 10:10 AM
>
>
> To
> wsrp <>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [wsrp] Public parameters conformance statement?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just to clarify, I find the sentence "Portlets do not store these items
> ..." a bit unclear. Are we saying that "portlets don't generally store
> these parameters ...", or are we saying that "we don't recommend that
> portlets store ...".?
>
> I suggest that we tigheten the language either with a conformance statement
>
> "Portlets MAY NOT ..."
>
> or a with a guideline
>
> "We recommend that Portlet developers do not store ... for such and such
> reasons."
>
> Regards,
>
> Subbu
>
> Rich Thompson wrote:
> >
> > Subbu raised a question about changing "Portlets do not store these
> > items in any portion of their state as the Consumer supplies the items
> > on each invocation. In the absence of a Consumer supplied value for a
> > public parameter the Portlet listed in its portletDescription, the
> > Portlet SHOULD use a default value" to say Portlets either SHOULD NOT or
> > MAY NOT store these items ...
> >
> > I considered this when adding this text, but decided against it as the
> > one reasonable use case I could imagine for a Portlet storing the
> > current public parameters was to use them as the default values should
> > the parameter not be supplied on subsequent invocations. Do people think
> > we should leave this as-is or make it a conformance statement?
> >
> > Rich
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
