First, I'm assuming this is mainly framework feature, and that portlet
developers would only rarely need to interact with it directly. It's
just so that NetUI can make a few attributes live across portal refresh
requests. Do you agree?
Assuming that's true, here are some thoughts:
- I think your simpler approach of keeping a list of reconstructible
attributes is a good one.
- Along the lines of what Chad said below, I think NetUI should be
able to return a small object (state+logic necessary for reconstructing
later) for all attributes returned in the list above:
ReconstructibleAttribute getReconstructibleAttribute(String
attributeName);
The returned object could reconstruct the original attribute on
demand:
Object originalValue =
reconstructibleAttribute.reconstruct(<context>);
Assuming we have a factory for producing these things, we could
allow the advanced user to override it in beehive-netui-config.xml.
- The portal framework should be in complete control of the actual
storing and restoring of the attribute values -- our code should not do
this. It was a mistake (my mistake) to take on this responsibility in
the first place -- it doesn't belong in NetUI.
- NetUI's only responsibility should be to provide a list of attribute
names and the ability to get the small reconstructible attribute
object. The portal framework would:
1) at the end of a request, get the list of reconstructible
attributes, call getReconstructibleAttribute() for each one, and store
the returned ReconstructibleAttributes in any way it chooses (RA is
Serializable of course).
2) at the beginning of the next request, retrieve all of the
ReconstructibleAttributes, reconstruct the original values, and set them
in the request using setAttribute.
- Everything should be structured to make persisting attributes *not*
the default.
What do you think?
Rich
Chad Schoettger wrote:
> If a user wanted to drop some of the removable attributes to save
> space, the caller would get the list of removable attributes from the
> ScopedRequest then call dropAttribute() for those attributes.
>
> If at that point the user invoked ScopedRequest.getAttributeMap() the
> attributes which where dropped would not be in the map returned.
>
> In order for the ScopedRequest to be able to reconstruct the
> reconstructable attributes, it would be necessary to store the
> information necessary to reconstruct in the attribute map. This would
> be returned by the ScopedRequest.getAttributeMap() but would have
> 'internal' key names and be much smaller in size that the original
> attribute value.
>
> - Chad
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 10/16/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback Chad. I have a question about how NetUI
should
>> handle the ScopedRequest.getAttributeMap() / setAttributeMap() if the
>> ScopedRequest implementation is handling the reconstruction of
>> attributes. The portal framework uses these two methods when managing
>> the persisted attributes.
>>
>> Would getAttributeMap() always return a map that contained the
>> reconstructable attributes or the true attributes? I'd think we'd
want
>> the reconstructable attribute objects. Then a caller could get the
set
>> of reconstructable attributes and go through the dropAttribute(), and
>> a later call to setAttributeMap() for a refresh request would return
>> the reconstructable attribute objects to the request. And as you
have,
>> a follow up call to getAttribute() would reconstruct it. Is that
>> correct?
>>
>> Other thoughts?
>>
>> Carlin
>>
>> On 10/16/06, Chad Schoettger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > After taking a look at this issue as well, I'm in agreement with
>> > adding a new method to the ScopedRequest which returns a list of
NETUI
>> > attribute names that don't need to be persisted in a session.
>> >
>> > I was thinking for attributes which can be reconstructed, that
instead
>> > of adding any new API's to the ScopedRequest, the ScopedRequest
would
>> > reconstruct those values internally the next time the ScopedRequest
>> > getAttribute() method is invoked for that reconstructable attribute
>> > value.
>> >
>> > Something like:
>> >
>> > ScopedRequest
>> > getAttribute(String attributeName) {
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> > if (!attributeName in map) {
>> > if (isReconstructable(attributeName)) {
>> > return reconstructAttribute(attributeName);
>> > }
>> > }
>> > .
>> > .
>> > .
>> > }
>> >
>> > Using this approach would seem to simplify what a portal developer
>> > needs to do in order to use this feature.
>> >
>> > - Chad
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 10/15/06, Carlin Rogers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > I'm looking at BEEHIVE-1031 (been on my plate for a while now)
and
>> > > some of the information already discussed. I have a couple of
>> thoughts
>> > > and wanted to get your feedback. Chad has taken a look at this as
>> well
>> > > so he may have some ideas or input.
>> > >
>> > > Rich posted some good initial design thoughts to the dev list
and a
>> > > wiki page a while ago...
>> > >
>>
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/beehive-dev/200509.mbox/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> > > http://wiki.apache.org/beehive/Design/PortletScoping
>> > > (start at the 3rd paragraph in "Issues and Future Directions" of
>> the wiki page)
>> > >
>> > > Here's a slightly different approach... In much of the NetUI
code we
>> > > do not know that we have a scoped request when we set an
attribute.
>> > > Rather than change the NetUI code to setPersistableAttribute and
>> > > markPersistableAttribute, how about just having a simple
>> ScopedRequest
>> > > method that returns a list of NetUI attribute names that don't
>> need to
>> > > be persisted in a session for use in a refresh request. A portal
>> > > framework can use this list of names to remove attributes from
>> the set
>> > > to be saved in the session. Most of the objects that do not need
>> to be
>> > > persisted for a refresh request are the ImplicitObjects that get
>> > > loaded when a request goes through the PageFlowPageFilter.
>> > >
>> > > I think there are just two attributes that would fall into the
>> > > re-constructable category; the module config and the action
mapping
>> > > instance. For these, NetUI could still implement something
like what
>> > > Rich suggested to allow portal developers to reduce the size
of the
>> > > attribute objects persisted in the session.
>> > >
>> > > The ScopedRequest could have a method to return a map of
>> > > reconstructable attributes. This would provide portal framework
>> > > developers the option of using these reconstructable
attributes to
>> > > persist in the session in place of the true attributes from the
>> > > ScopedRequest atttribute map. The ScopedRequest could also have a
>> > > method to provide the names so on a refresh request the framework
>> > > would know what attributes to reconstruct from the persisted
set in
>> > > the session, before restoring the attribute map for a
ScopedRequest.
>> > >
>> > > Thoughts?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Carlin
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
