Re: [wsrp] Public parameters conformance statement?

The sentence following the one leading
to this discussion reads "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".
The intent of this conformance statement is to cause Portlets to have some
fallback for when a public parameter is not supplied by the Consumer. It
also allows the Consumer to distinguish between the full set of values
(including null) and using a default value.

Rich 

Subbu Allamaraju <>

05/31/05 02:48 PM

To

wsrp <>

cc

Subject

Re: [wsrp] Public parameters
conformance statement?

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

> 

> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

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