[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp][interfaces] separate administration interface
I have other concerns regarding portability of portlets across portletcontainers but this is outside of the scope of WSRP. I am curious! What are those concerns? Best regards, Angel Angel Luis Diaz, Ph.D Senior Manager, Next Generation eXperience Frameworks IBM T. J. Watson Research Center aldiaz@us.ibm.com (914) 784-7388 / (914) 441-7594 Alejandro Abdelnur <alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com> on 06/03/2002 01:22:49 PM To: jbroberg@silverstream.com cc: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsrp][interfaces] separate administration interface Jeff, In both cases, Personalization and Administration, I'm referring to the customization and personalization capabilities that a portlet exposes. As it has been discussed so far, Administration is just a special case of Personalization where the user, because he/she has an administrator role, can set configuration data at template level and because of his/her role can see/touch more configuration parameters. I see Personalization done through the portlet (i.e.: when the user clicks the EDIT button) as the user has the portlet in his/her portal page. The portlet itself knows how to persist the configuration data that is meant for a specific user, the one making the customization. Based on the user's roles more or less configuration parameters are exposed to the user. The main problems I see by doing Administration in the same way as Personalization are: * An administrator has to set the portlet template in a portal page in order to configure it. * There is no provision, neither metadata, to enable administration through other means such as a command line tool or a configuration console. The Administration has to be done exclusively through the portal. I'll prepare a list of requirements on this matter and I'll send it to the alias. I have other concerns regarding portability of portlets across portlet containers but this is outside of the scope of WSRP. Regards. Alejandro Jeff Broberg wrote: I am alittle confused. If a portlet wanted to expose some administration capabilities such as allowing parameters to be modified for personallization wouldnt they expose an "Administration" action that would then be shown to the appropriate users based on their roles. Or is the type of administration that you are talking about different from the customization/personalization capabilities that a portlet exposes ? jeff -----Original Message----- From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com] Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:58 PM To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.orgSubject: [wsrp][interfaces] separate administration interface I have some concerns on the idea of using the usage interface for doing administration tasks on a portlet. I think we should have a separate administration interface. And, probably, some metadata (provided by the portlet) describing how the portlet should be administered. I'm re-posting a message I've sent last week, as it was a reply to another email, because of the subject, some of you may have overlooked it. Mike and Eilon replied to it, so you may want to check the thread in the archives. Thanks and regards. Alejandro -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [wsrp][interfaces]: Portal Usage Scenario Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 16:57:54 -0700 From: Alejandro Abdelnur <alejandro.abdelnur@Sun.COM>Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc To: "Tamari, Yossi" <yossi.tamari@sapportals.com>CC: "'Thomas Schaeck'" <SCHAECK@de.ibm.com>, wsrp@lists.oasis-open.orgReferences: <5199D0E7CA63D511BB6F0008C75DAD1403653228@dbwdfx2e.wdf.sap-ag.de>Tamari, Yossi wrote: Hi Thomas, I don't think that the fact the portal can set the portlet's properties means that there can be no plug-and-play. The Portlet can advertise its properties and their type (XML-Schema like) in its meta-data, and the portal can use this meta-data to automatically display a set-properties page. While this page can not be as customized as the portlet generated page, it has the advantage of creating a uniform set-properties look and feel throughout the portal. I'm just saying both options have their merits, and we should regard both. Yossi. I agree with Yossi. We should investigate/consider other alternatives. This is somehow related to an issue I've brought up in the WSRP/security conf call last week about "...separation of interfaces and roles for administrative vs. non-administrative usage. ..." I see some key problems on the approach we are heading to, where we do not have a separate administration interface from the regular usage interface. Administration and personalization are very different beasts. Using a definition from a colleague, personalization of a component is when a user customizes the behavior of the component for himself; while administration is when a user customizes the behavior of the component for one (other than her) or more users. I see personalization being done through the usage interface, as most portal frameworks -if not all- do it today. I see as a possibility to do administration of portlets through portlets, not the same portlet but a special administration portlet provided by the WSRP service. I have problems seeing administration functionality being done through the usage interface of the same portlet is to be administered. Personalization is about a given portlet instance for a given user. Administration may have to deal with roles, groups, templates, etc. In my opinion, it will be very hard to implement a portlet to do this administration unless the portlet is knowledgeable of the WSRP service configuration data model. A portlet knows about the business logic it produces presentation logic for. A portlet knows about the configuration/personalization parameters it needs. But a portlet does not necessary know how the container hosting the portlet organizes and stores the configuration or personalization parameters handled to the portlets. Another problems that I see are: * The administration interface should allow an administration tool to be built using portlets, but it must not impose additional requirements on the administration framework. * Administration should not require the administrator to put the portlet in his portal page in order to administer it. * It should be the responsibility of the WSRP service (or the portal), but not of the portlet, to manage the details of delegated administration. * Security of the usage and administration interface may be different. * It's delegated to the portlet to decide if a user can do administration or not. * The usage interface may have different scalability requirements than the administration interface. Finally, there are different specifications that address management of resources in distributed environments such as CIM, SMNP, JMX (Java specific). Also, in OASIS there is a proposal for a Management Services TC. We should investigate if any of them are suitable. Regards. Alejandro ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC