Yes, but if the Producer decides not to supply exportData, the Consumer
won't be required to send it with importPortlets message. So, I don't
see making exportData optional changing any semantics.
Consider the case where the producer is able to export all portlets by
reference. Then the producer could return a message like
<exportPortletsResponse/>
But if the producer is able to export only a few portlets, it will have
to return a response like
<exportPortletsResponse>
<exportedPortlets>
<portletHandle>foo1</portletHandle>
<exportData>xxxxx</portletHandle>
</exportedPortlets>
...
</exportPortletsResponse>
So, the producer is forced to make up some exportData element. This
seems awkward.
Regards,
Subbu
Rich Thompson wrote:
>
> It is the exportData field that will get supplied to the import
> operation. The portletHandle field is there just as a reference since
> export is a bulk operation. It certainly would be valid for a Producer
> to merely place a copy of the portletHandle in the exportData field.
>
> Rich
>
>
> *Subbu Allamaraju <>*
>
> 05/26/05 06:25 PM
>
>
> To
> wsrp <>
> cc
>
> Subject
> [wsrp] exportData field in ExportedPortlet Structure
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I might have asked this before, but could someone clarify why exportData
> field is required in ExportedPortlet structure.
>
> If the producer does not support export by value, and the consumer sends
> an exportPortlet request with exportByValue=false, the Producer should
> be allowed to return the handles of exported portlets without
> exportData. Any reasons for making this a required field?
>
> Subbu
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
> at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
