Re: [wsrp] Public review comment: extendedURLParameters

It seems presumptive to assume that other situations/uses don't exist 
where sending the parameters for the entire lifecycle would impact the 
behavior.  I could certainly live with such a relaxation when an 
extended URL type is used but think it may be dangerous for existing URL 
types.
    -Mike-

Subbu Allamaraju wrote:

> I would like to cast this as a public review comment.
>
> Subbu
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: [wsrp] extendedURLParameters question
> Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2006 07:03:10 -0600
> From: Subbu Allamaraju <>
> To: OASIS WSRP TC <>
>
> I have a question regarding sending extended URL parameters.
>
> Is a consumer allowed to send these parameters on more than one markup
> operation during the scope of the client request that included these
> parameters?
>
> In particular, if a blockingAction URL contained extended URL
> parameters, is it valid for the consumer to send these parameters on the
> following requests during the scope of the same client request
>
> - pbia
> - handleEvents (only to the portlet that initiated the request)
> - getMarkup (only to the portlet that initiated the request)
>
> The statement "Consumers MUST NOT resend a particular set of
> wsrp-extra:extendedURLParameters  on later invocations of WSRP defined
> operations" in Sec 12.2 seems to be preventing this.
>
> During last week's interfaces call, it was pointed out that the request
> ID notion for the ajax discussion can be mapped to extended URL
> parameters, and this conformance statement stands in the way. Is there a
> reason not to relax this statement by adding "beyond the scope of the
> current request".
>
> Regards,
> Subbu