Hey Martin,

One thing we "could" look at if 286 won't be released for a while is an extension to Trinidad to support a "plugable" ppr system. This would be a lot of work but we could have plugins for various portals that would allow us to enable PPR. If a plugin was not available for a particular portal then we fall back to no ppr. Still, we really need a functioning bridge before we can test this effectively so I totally agree with your comment about getting the bridge done first. Who knows, maybe 286 will be released by the time we get everything put together.

Scott

Scott O'Bryan wrote:
Moving this to Dev list since it belongs there...  :)

Martin Marinschek wrote:
Hi Scott,

interesting, thanks for the further clarification. I see the problems
very clearly now. Well then - let's start off this portlet bridge, and
see where it brings us to!

regards,

Martin

On 6/11/07, Scott O'Bryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Martin,

PPR in Portlets CAN be implemented using certain portlet
implementations.  But it cannot be done with generic JSR-168.  Here are
a number of problems although I'm sure there are more:

1. Action Requests have portal artifacts.  This means that a portal can
append content to a response (and typically will) making it insufficient
to use in an XMLHttpRequest and/or an iframe with ppr data and JS.

2. Resource Requests are not in-protocol.  This means that if we decide
to retrieve the PPR segment as a resource, we are not guaranteed to have
the same session..  Especially in remote WSRP type environments.  Even
if we "could", portlet-scoped properties on the session are prefixed
with javax.portlet.[PORTLET_ID] and there is no way in JSR-168 to obtain
the portlet id for the portlet instance.  In MANY implementations this
is the same as the namespace, but this is in no way guaranteed by
JSR-168. This makes it impossible for all JSR-168 containers to support
a "servlet" type fallback.

That being said, I have successfully used the "servlet" technique on
Pluto and WebSphere (when not running through WSRP) by using the
namespace as the portlet id, but I would rather wait for JSR-286 to come
out (which is looking like it will support BOTH an in-protocol resource
requests AND a special XMLHttpRequest handler) in order to enable AJAX
in a container agnostic fashion.

Do you agree?

Scott

Martin Marinschek wrote:
> Hi Scott,
>
> sorry for the late response - I've been on vacation the last week.
> Yeah, your proposal seems definitely interesting. The bridge could
> certainly be a sub-project of MyFaces.
>
> I was thinking about why PPR wouldn't be supported in a portlet
> environment - is that due to the fact that the portlet server itself
> would need to know about PPR, and so it is entirely impossible to do
> this in portlet servers?
>
> I envision it might be possible to have the client-side AJAX library
> post back to a servlet instead of the portlet - would that be possible
> or not, wdyt?
>
> regards,
>
> Martin







Reply via email to