MHonArc v2.5.2 -->
wsia message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfacesdocument
Eilon-
thanx for providing more details on your approach. However I still prefer
the explicit option for performance optimization for the following reasons:
- what I understood from your comment is that you want to make use of the
HTTP/1.1 feature to leave an established connection open during multiple
request. This would reduce the overhead of opening/closing a connection.
However it would not reduce the number of total roundtrips as you would
still call the method (e.g. getFragments) multiple times. Furthermore you
would still have the overhad of instantiating all the intermediate objects
your SOAP implementation used to marshal/unmarshal the SOAP request. By
passing arrays as parameters both disadvantages disappear.
- from my point of view one of the major advantages of using arrays is that
the producer can exploit parallelity when satisfying the requests. In your
approach this would not be possible as all requests come in sequentially.
- I don't agree that a consumer would be more difficult to implement. If
its does not support arrays, its just sends out one element. The producer
however would have to be able to deal with arrays. But this is trivial as
in the simplest case it would just iterate over the elements of the array
in a single loop.
Best regards
Carsten Leue
-------
Dr. Carsten Leue
Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory B�blingen , Germany
Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401
|---------+----------------------------->
| | "Eilon Reshef" |
| | <eilon.reshef@webc|
| | ollage.com> |
| | |
| | 06/11/2002 07:37 |
| | PM |
| | Please respond to |
| | "Eilon Reshef" |
| | |
|---------+----------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: Carsten Leue/Germany/IBM@IBMDE |
| cc: <wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>, <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>, Thomas Klein6/Germany/IBM@IBMDE |
| Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfaces document |
| |
| |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Carsten,
I apologize for the confusion.
What I meant to say is that SOAP relies on an underlying stack of
protocols.
In our case, we can safely assume as much as optimization is concerned that
the underlying protocol is HTTP (unless anybody has in mind SMTP portlets).
In this case, one can use HTTP/1.1 as a transport mechanism for the SOAP
requests. This does not require new opening new connections for every
request.
However, as you noted, this is not part of the common frameworks for SOAP.
However, let's not forget that we must support the standard stack
(SOAP/HTTP) but leveraging the existing frameworks is extremely important,
but if there is a certain optimization that people can do outside those
frameworks this is not something that should discouraged.
More specifically, on the client (Consumer) side, I don't see this as a
concern since we only need to have one proxy and we can manually construct
it if necessary for the extra performance (it wouldn't be the first time
that performance requires extra work, and I prefer that to a solution that
the interface inherently implies extra work).
On the server (Producer) side, I am more concerned: I am completely unaware
of what the coupling between the Web server and the underlying frameworks
is. If someone has an idea whether HTTP/1.1 can be forced to be used there,
that would be beneficial.
I disagree with you that is "tweaking" the transport: this may be tweaking
the existing SOAP frameworks, but hey: they are just piece of auxiliary
code, and I would rather look at is as moving beyond the infancy of the
those frameworks.
Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Leue [mailto:CLEUE@de.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 2:47 AM
To: Eilon Reshef
Cc: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org; Thomas
Klein6
Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged
interfaces document
Eilon - i was not aware of this SOAP functionality. Can you detail a
bit on
this topic? How would I setup a batch call programatically? Is this
batch
processing part of the standard stacks (SOAP4J, AXIS, .NET)?
Best regards
Carsten Leue
-------
Dr. Carsten Leue
Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory B�blingen , Germany
Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401
|---------+----------------------------->
| | Eilon Reshef |
| | <eilon.reshef@webc|
| | ollage.com> |
| | |
| | 06/10/2002 08:33 |
| | PM |
| | Please respond to |
| | Eilon Reshef |
| | |
|---------+----------------------------->
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
| To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org,
wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
|
| cc:
|
| Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces]
Merged interfaces document
|
|
|
|
|
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
Rich, isn't call batching available today at part of the relevant
SOAP
stack via HTTP/1.1, unless you use a code library that doesn't
support it?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 1:21 PM
To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged
interfaces document
We have to work through the array idea as it as big performance
implications and I don't see any indications that call batching
at
the SOAP
stack level will be available in a relatively short timeframe.
My understanding from the WSRP interfaces discussions is that a
template is
a portal concept. It is effectively a configured portlet that
is used
from
a toolbox to design pages. The concept of an instance is a
configured
portlet that is linked to the layout of a portal page. This
configuration
MAY have come from cloning a template. From the perspective of
what
the
Producer needs to support, both of these are particular
configurations of
an entity the service exposes with the Consumer choosing to use
them
in
different ways. I have been searching for reasons why there
would be
a
difference for the entity, but haven't found one yet.
If I understand your question about transient entities
correctly, you
see
why sessions should be separated from entities so that they can
be
shared
but question whether services will ever expose entities that
aren't
persistent. I can certainly imagine entities with no
persistence (the
service that hosts them likely has some persistence of who may
use
them
along with some use log for audit & billing purposes). A simple
entity that
puts a UI on a stock ticker feed may be a good example. It
chooses to
delegate all the billing issues to the service where it is
deployed
and all
the configuration persistence to its Consumers. In this case,
createPersistentEntities() would always fail as only transient
entities are
supported.
Andre Kramer
<andre.kramer@eu. To: Rich
Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, wsia@lists.oasis-open.org,
citrix.com>
wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
cc:
06/10/2002 10:37 Subject: RE:
[wsia]
[wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged
AM interfaces
document
Supporting a batch operation mode through arrays does not seem
very
clean.
In the "getFragment"
case (getFragments?), the portal will most likely then have to
wait
until
the whole array is
returned (i.e. all remote portlets have rendered) before it can
display the
resulting mark-up.
How many consumer to producer parallel calls do we expect
typically?
I
would
rather leave
call batching up to the (future) SOAP stack.
Always using "Entity" as the thing to create remotely seem to
loose
the
"class" versus "object"
semantics that the WSRP "template" and "instance" operation
names
used to
imply. Do we now see no
no difference between remote data storage - 'templates'
(possibly
with
inheritance) and
computational entities - 'instances', that WSRP seems to
naturally
call
for?
Or are these the
persistent v.s. transient entities of the document (for me,
portlet
instances persist too)?
In trying to follow the discussion, I'm confused as to why we
need
both
sessions and transient
entities, both being under the control of the consumer. I do
see a
need for
common sessions
(same user/group or consumer portal) but do not see the need
for
other
transient entities,
expecting a consumer to have to pay for all entities, in some
way, in
the
real world. I know
the next call will discuss these but could someone give a brief
rational
before then?
Thanks,
Andre
Andre Kramer, Citrix Systems, Inc.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 07 June 2002 20:38
To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged
interfaces
document
Here is a draft of the merged interfaces document that Carsten
and I
have
been working on this week. The largest conceptual change from
the
previous
0.44 Joint Spec Draft is the appearance of arrays in most of
the
operations. This allows Consumers on the scale of portals to
efficiently
interact with Producer services.
(See attached file: WSIA - WSRP Interface Specification.doc)
----------------------------------------------------------------
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