RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

When the initialization is piggybacked on another call, the problem is in
determining which cookies are valid only for interacting with the targetted
entity and which belong to the group of entities. The Consumer shouldn't
expose another entity's cookies to an entity, should it?



                                                                                                                 
                      Andre Kramer                                                                               
                      <andre.kramer@eu.        To:       Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,                         
                      citrix.com>               wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org                                   
                                               cc:                                                               
                      09/30/2002 11:47         Subject:  RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?       
                      AM                                                                                         
                                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                 



I don't think the consumer need know which transport level items (cookies)
are related to what piece of established context. It only needs to return
them? It could get tricky when you try to re-use a cookie on another
parallel connection to the same producer but I think one could make sure
that this works (e.g. consumers copying over all cookies and with the
producer validating all cookies against the explicit protocol parameters).

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 30 September 2002 15:15
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?



I agree for the most part, but if the purpose is grouping, then why
wouldn't the ID be groupID and the operation be initGroup()?

I do not like the idea of piggybacking this on the first operation within
the group ... how is the Consumer to tell which transport level items
(cookies for http) are related to initializing the group and which are
related to interacting with the entity?





                      Andre Kramer

                      <andre.kramer@eu.        To:
"'wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'"
                      citrix.com>
<wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>
                                               cc:

                      09/30/2002 09:17         Subject:  RE: [wsrp-wsia]
[I#6]Update: Is groupId required?
                      AM








Introducing an implicit transport level token that is not reflected in our
application protocol (SOAP- headers or interface WSDL) seems bad on design
principles alone, to me, as producers are not always going to be one (http
or other transport) hop away from producers. Therefore the pattern should
be:

initEnvironment(environmentID) - if environment needs to be explicitly
established
operation(environmentID) - if operation is in the context of the named
environment then the context should be explicit.

I don't mind limiting the use cases for initEnvironment (as long as it
remains optional) but I do wonder why we are both trying to simply the
semantics and adding an extra costly network round trip to the end user
interaction (maybe initEnviornment and its result should carry a timestamp
so that user dead time can be easily measured as well as a
context/environment/grouping identifier? ;-)

How about instead limiting a new connection to only one outstanding
getMarkup or performInteraction at first use so that a context can be
established both at the transport and wsrp level? This avoids the extra
initEnvironment round trip but I would still vote for some form of
context/environment/group identifier to make explict the shared context.

regards,
Andre

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Gil Tayar [mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
      Sent: 26 September 2002 18:40
      To: 'Tamari, Yossi'
      Cc: 'wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'
      Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?

      Yup. Sorry. I'll update the list (remove the "we are postponing..."
      part). Note however that a "tentative proposal" email was also sent.
            -----Original Message-----
            From: Tamari, Yossi [mailto:yossi.tamari@sap.com]
            Sent: Thu, September 26, 2002 20:32
            To: 'Gil Tayar'
            Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?

            Hi Gil,

            I think you got a little confused. Regarding this we said we
            will vote next week to remove groupId from the spec.
            It was regarding the isRefresh that we said we will defer until
            after the JSR meeting.

                Yossi.
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: Gil Tayar [mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
                  Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 8:29 PM
                  To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
                  Subject: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?

                  Owner: Michael Freedman
                  Title: Is groupId required?
                  Description:
                  Since we now have initEnvironment, which is the solution
                  for shared sessions, do we now need groupId, which was
                  also defined as a mechanism for group sessions.
                  We are postponing this until we hear some more
                  information from the JSR-168 liason people.






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