Rich,
Yes, we should clarify its use. I just finished a conversation with
some folks in my development team where they completely missed needing
to use navigational parameters as inputs to internal state. Rather
they equated them more with the current navigational state concept
which holds state. One of the developers suggested providing a table
that includes all the mechanisms and lists such factors as whether it
represents managed state or not, whether its for interportlet comm or
not, etc.
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
By the way, sections numbers are
always
handy ... your page 29 resolves to section 5.1.17 on page 30 for me.
My comments:
a. The TC decided that "it
is always a Consumer choice to supply them (navigationParameters)
on a particular invocation".
The direct fallout of this is that the navigationParameterDescription
is
not allowed to require supplying if a particular item. This results in
a model where the Consumer only supplies new values when they occur and
the Portlet. Perhaps what is missing is a more concrete description
(both
here and in 6.1.11) that navigationParameters are simply an input which
the Portlet SHOULD then store in its navigational state.
b. This sentence is providing
guidance
about how navigationParameters are shared between portlets, but is
explicitly
noting that the guidance likely doesn't apply when two portlets
customized
from the same POP within the sharing scope (likely the page).
Rich
Subbu
Allamaraju <>
12/14/05 03:06 PM
To
OASIS WSRP TC
<>
cc
Subject
[wsrp] Navigation
params comments
Two questions/comments on the
navigationParameterDescriptions
(page 29
of draft 12):
a. There is a statement that says that
"As such, regardless of the values in the PropertyDescription‘s
capabilities field, navigationParameters are always modifiable and
optional."
Does not this weaken the notion of wsrp:required capability?
b. The intent of the next sentence is not clear to me.
"While Consumer policy governs what navigation parameters are supplied
to each invocation of a Portlet, Consumers SHOULD supply the same value
to Portlets which are related to distinct Producer offered portlet
handles and provide a navigationParameterDescription referencing the
same QName for the parameter’s name."
I think what we want to say is that the consumer should try to supply
the same value to any portlet with a matching name as specified in
navigationParameterDescription. How about changing this text to the
following?
"While Consumer policy governs what navigation parameters are supplied
to each invocation of a Portlet, Consumers SHOULD supply the same value
to any portlet with the same QName for the parameter's name as
specified
in the portlet's navigationParameterDescription."
Subbu
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
