Hi Scott, I think you understand what I was proposing and how it has to operate to protect the contexts for client-side technologies. And it sounds potentially like you may have come up with a possible way to design and implement such a model. If this model can be successfully implemented then I think it should be incorporated into JSR-168. I think that is essential.
rgds, Gerry Reno --- "Weaver, Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I see the "refresh" option as porlet mode/render request, more than > likely the "doView()" mode. > > *===================================* > * Scott T Weaver * > * Jakarta Jetspeed Portal Project * > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > *===================================* > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Weaver, Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:29 PM > > To: 'Jetspeed Users List' > > Subject: RE: JSR-168 Article Part 1 in JavaWorld > > > > > I'm assuming that there would be an 'API' so that the developer > would > > > know how to talk to the proxy and request their portlet refresh. > > > > Developers should not need to be aware of this. We would have > > configuration options that would generate URLs that would be aware > of this > > and possibly use javascript to intercept these requests and send > them to > > the proxy. Like I said I don't have all the technical details > figured > > out. > > > > We need to hide as much of the implementation as possible from the > > developer so their portlets can be used in portals that support > JSR-168 > > but do not support the extended DOM interaction model you are > proposing. > > > > > > Regards, > > *===================================* > > * Scott T Weaver * > > * Jakarta Jetspeed Portal Project * > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > > *===================================* > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Gerry Reno [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 4:11 PM > > > To: Jetspeed Users List > > > Subject: RE: JSR-168 Article Part 1 in JavaWorld > > > > > > Hi Scott, > > > > > > --- "Weaver, Scott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Ok, but I still think that an optional Refresh button makes > sense > > > > in > > > > > some instances. Especially if you've set the TTL out very > far and > > > > you > > > > > then decide you want to refresh the portlet without > refreshing the > > > > > whole page. > > > > > > > > Of course, and that would be up to the portlet developer to > provide > > > > that sort of functionality within his/her portlets. > > > > > > > > > > I'm assuming that there would be an 'API' so that the developer > would > > > know how to talk to the proxy and request their portlet refresh. > > > > > > > > > rgds, > > > Gerry Reno > > > > > > <snip/> > > > > > > __________________________________ > > > Do you Yahoo!? > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
