wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp] suggested 1.0 errata / direct resources
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 06:26:49 -0400
A minor nit; I think most everywhere
Andre has used renderTemplate, he actually meant resourceTemplate.
I think this is an issue we should allow
to sit longer than would be possible if we added it to v1. In particular,
I would like to explore why an additional template would be a desirable
solution when compared to a boolean providing the equivalent guidance.
Rich Thompson
| Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>
06/30/2003 03:59 AM
|
To:
wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
Subject:
RE: [wsrp] suggested 1.0 errata / direct
resources |
Yes, cookies and sessions would
not be shared with such direct resources. We would need to call out this
implication.
The consumer would only add the
new template (it would be optional and the fall-back is the current renderTemplate)
if it knew that the client has direct Internet access. A Consumer (optionally)
sets both resource templates and the producer uses them as follows:
both - uses renderNoRewriteTemplate
for gif etc that don't require a rewrite, cookie or session. renderTemplate
for other resources.
only renderTemplate - use for
all resources ({wsrp-requiresRewrite} controls re-write by consumer)
only renderNoRewriteTemplate -
not allowed!
neither - resources that don't
require a rewrite are written in as direct urls, producer could fall back
on consumer rewriting for resources that require a rewrite or should re-write
at the producer side. [default templates would not include the {wsrp-url}
{wsrp-requiresRewrite} slots so can't be used.]
So, the consumer can decide to
proxy on a per-request basis (i.e. request the producer to proxy no-rewrite
resources on a per-request basis, with templates (optionally) cached in
user sessions).
regards,
Andre
-----Original Message-----
From: Tamari, Yossi [mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com]
Sent: 29 June 2003 10:34
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp] suggested 1.0 errata / direct resources
Hi Andre,
Such resources also cannot count
on using cookies, sessions etc., right?
The producer will also be taking
the chance that the end user has no internet access to the direct URL (because
of firewall issues, for example), and therefore the portlet can break,
without either the consumer or the producer being able to fix this, right?
Or is the consumer allowed to decide to proxy the resource anyway?
I have a feeling I am still not
understanding your expected behavior of producers/consumers in this case...
Yossi.
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Kramer [mailto:andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 12:18 PM
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp] suggested 1.0 errata / direct resources
I still see being able to avoid
proxying resources as a high priority performance optimization, but maybe
my suggestion of just making {wsrp-requiresRewrite} optional was not a
great one. Here is a proposal that adds to, rather than tweaks, the spec.
It could be a vendor extension, or a 1.1 feature, but I wanted to put it
on the table (as developers will just write absolute urls in their fragments
otherwise, I fear):
The proposal, that I have in mind,
is to add a new template (10.2.2.X and a field in Templates 6.1.6). Let's
call it "resourceNoRewriteTemplate" for now. (Obviously, we should
add a secure equivalent and rename for clarity).
resourceNoRewriteTemplate has
only one allowed URL parameter {wsrp-url} and is used instead of renderTemplate,
if present. But it is only used when the resource requires no rewrite by
the consumer i.e. when {wsrp-requiresRewrite} would be set to false for
renderTemplate usage.
For resources that require no
rewriting, the producer writes absolute resource URLs into the {wsrp-url}
slot in this template (e.g. to make gif go via a http (non WSRP re-writing)
proxy server), with one other change from normal resourceTemplate usage:
If the resourceNoRewriteTemplate's
value is "{wsrp-url}" (i.e. no chars left of { or right of })
the producer must write in the unencoded URL of the resource. Otherwise
the producer must first url encode the absolute resource URL (as is the
case for renderTemplate now).
We could make use of renderNoRewriteTemplate
optional for producers so that we are backwards compatible with the 1.0
TC spec.
What do people think? We would
then be able to avoid proxying images etc or go via non-WSRP http proxies
if no re-write is required.
regards,
Andre
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]