OASIS Web Services Interactive Applications TC

 View Only

RE: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities

  • 1.  RE: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities

    Posted 06-12-2002 18:54
     MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    wsia message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Subject: RE: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities


    Title: Message
    Wouldn't it be easier to just pass a key (say: portlet-group-id), that allows the Producer to manage this more carefully than providing access to a low-level mechanism such a session?
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
    Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:27 PM
    To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities


    I would agree that supporting explicit creation of sessions is easy means
    for a Consumer to indicate an arbitrary grouping that it would like to
    establish. As the Producer is ultimately managing the sessions, it can
    always enforce whatever policies it would like on these groupings. I would
    recommend that this version of the spec not try and define how a Producer
    could expose such policies to the Consumer, though we may want to revisit
    this question for future versions of the spec if scenarios are defined that
    demonstrate value to the Consumer in knowing the Producer's policies.



                                                                                                                        
                          "MICHAEL.FREEDMAN"                                                                            
                          <MICHAEL.FREEDMAN@        To:       wsia@lists.oasis-open.org, wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org      
                          oracle.com>               cc:                                                                 
                                                    Subject:  Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities            
                          06/12/2002 10:58                                                                              
                          AM                                                                                            
                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                        



    Irs not so much a bother to allow rather its a no reason to prevent.  If a
    consumer wants to support such a thing they should be free to do so as this
    would allow arbitrary groupings (from the perspective of the producer).


          -Mike-










          face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff>If a simple group-id within the
          portlet UI
          takes care of the issue (which I agree with), why bother to allow the
          Consumer
          to create and manage sessions explicitly (versus implicit creation by
          the
          Producer)?

          class=122592900-12062002>

          class=122592900-12062002> -----Original Message-----
          From:
          Michael Freedman [mailto:Michael.Freedman@oracle.com]
          Sent: Tuesday,
          June 11, 2002 7:43 PM
          To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org;
          wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
          Subject: Re: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient
          Entities


                Eilon,
                  I think your
                suggestion intermixes 2 different concepts -- that of session
                identity and
                that of instance/entity identity.  My scenario 1 concerns
                itself with how
                an instance/entity id can be used to segment data within a
                session.  My
                scenario 2 concerns itself with how distinct sessions can be
                established/maintained.  I suggested we don't define a way for
                the
                producer to describe its grouping rules.  Rather a consumer can
                choose to
                support grouping (via a mechanism its free to define) or leave
                it up to the
                consumer to handle internally (via perference/configuration
                data).  So in
                my scenario 2, a consumer isn't responsible for separating the
                portlets into
                different sessions.  It merely is allowed to do so.  Portlets
                must
                assume they aren't running in such environments -- rather they
                must assume
                they run in a shared session world -- hence they need an ID to
                do the proper
                namespacing.  As the consumer doesn't know this grouping
                (because it
                doesn't implement grouping) the producer must provide its own
                UI for getting
                these keys -- i.e. the producer must provide a
                configuration/personalization
                UI that allows a group key to be specified for each of its
                portlets -- it can
                then use this "internal" group id to key/separate data in the
                shared session.


                Just a long way of saying -- I don't buy your scenario 2.  If
                the
                consumer knows the grouping, I would rather the consumer
                maintain 2 discrete
                sessions as this allows it to continue to pass the entity id so
                each entity
                can maintain entity specific data if necessary (i.e. portlet A,
                B, B' in the
                same session/group -- B and B' can keep their data separate).
                If the
                consumer doesn't know the grouping then it controls things just
                like scenario
                1.  The producer is free to define/manage finer granularity as
                described
                above.
                     -Mike-


                Eilon Reshef wrote:
                        face="Trebuchet MS">Mike, class=731155222-11062002>
                      face="Trebuchet MS">Per your recent e-mails, I think that
                      the
                      approach makes sense. class=731155222-11062002> face
                      ="Trebuchet MS">The only thing that concerns me is that
                      we
                      have two different mechanisms to handle what would seem
                      to be a very similar
                      scenario. class=731155222-11062002>Scenario 1:
                      If there are two occurrences of a single portlet on a
                      page, then as
                      you described it the portlet is responsible for
                      segregating the
                      occurrence-specific information, using an additional key
                      provided by the
                      portal. class=731155222-11062002>Scenario 2:
                      If there are two occurrences of a pair of portlets, then
                      suddenly the
                      portal is responsible for segregating the two pairs by
                      placing them in two
                      separate sessions. class=731155222-11062002> face
                      ="Trebuchet MS">(All, of course, assuming that the
                      portlets use sessions) class=731155222-11062002> face
                      ="Trebuchet MS">The idea of the Consumer creating and
                      managing the segregation keys has the
                      scalability advantage that you mentioned.
                      class=731155222-11062002> class=731155222-11062002> face
                      ="Trebuchet MS">Can't we use it to handle both
                      scenarios? class=731155222-11062002>
                      class=731155222-11062002> size=-1>Namely:
                      class=731155222-11062002> class=731155222-11062002> face
                      ="Trebuchet MS">In scenario 1, where there's portlets A1
                      and A2, then the portal sends a key "1" when displaying
                      A1 and a key "2"
                      when displaying A2.  class=731155222-11062002> face
                      ="Trebuchet MS">In scenario 2, when there's portlet pairs

                      <A1, B1> and <A2, B2>, then the portal sends a key "1"
                      when
                      displaying A1 and B1 and the key "2" when displaying A2
                      and
                      B2. class=731155222-11062002> class=731155222-11062002>
                      This would
                      allow the Producer to create and manage the session id
                      (and maybe even
                      create them only when needed, instead of explicitly
                      creating them up-front
                      as the current draft suggests). The Consumer only has to
                      take into account
                      that it may receive (and needs to re-send) a separate
                      session id for each
                      one of the keys. class=731155222-11062002>
                      class=731155222-11062002> face="Trebuchet MS">Eilon
                      class=731155222-11062002> class=731155222-11062002>









    ----------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
    manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>



    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


    Powered by eList eXpress LLC