W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webapps@w3.org > January to March 2010

Re: [widgets] TWI: comments

From: Scott Wilson <scott.bradley.wilson@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 15:12:56 +0000
Cc: public-webapps WG <public-webapps@w3.org>
Message-Id: <60066FB2-E0EB-4151-8479-FA751DB592D8@gmail.com>
To: Robin Berjon <robin@berjon.com>, cyril.concolato@telecom-paristech.fr

On 9 Feb 2010, at 12:49, Robin Berjon wrote:

> Hi Cyril,
>
> On Feb 9, 2010, at 09:52 , Cyril Concolato wrote:
>> Le 08/02/2010 13:26, Robin Berjon a écrit :
>>> I'm not sure what you mean? The preference storage should remain  
>>> available across instantiations of the widget. This could probably  
>>> be rephrased though.
>> I think that maybe there should be two separate words instead of  
>> 'instance' for the two notions:
>> a) "a widget package instantiated twice at the same time"
>> b) "a widget package instantiated twice at different times".
>> In a) you have 2 different storage areas. In b) you have only one.
>
> I don't think that that is something which you can infer from any of  
> the specification we have published? Implementations may perform  
> what you do by assigning different authorities in the widget URIs  
> for your (a) and (b) but essentially that is equivalent to have two  
> widget packages (that happen to have the same content). If it really  
> is one and only one widget package, then I'd expect it to have the  
> same widget URI any time it is launched, and therefore if it has  
> multiple copies running in parallel those would share the storage.

Its up to implementations how they decide what rules they apply to  
determine what makes a widget instance. For example in our  
implementation this is decided by the process of requesting the widget  
- if its the same user, the same context, and the same widget package,  
then its the same instance and shares a storage area. Otherwise its a  
new instance with a new URI (by adding an instance id). But that's our  
implementation, and it relies on protocols that are outside the scope  
of TWI. I suggest looking at it from the user's perspective - given  
how the UA works, would they expect the storage to be shared or be  
separate?



Received on Tuesday, 9 February 2010 15:13:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:49:37 GMT