[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities
Right - especially we should not force the producer to implement a
sophisticated namespace management by letting the consumer manage multiple
sessions that shield the producers' data.
Best regards
Carsten Leue
-------
Dr. Carsten Leue
Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany
Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401
|---------+---------------------------->
| | Rex Brooks |
| | <rexb@starbourne.|
| | com> |
| | |
| | 06/13/2002 02:39 |
| | AM |
| | Please respond to|
| | Rex Brooks |
| | |
|---------+---------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: Eilon Reshef <eilon.reshef@webcollage.com>, wsia@lists.oasis-open.org, wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org |
| cc: |
| Subject: RE: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities |
| |
| |
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I think we are already getting down to too much micromanaging. Why should I
care how a producer manages their portlets, transient entities or any
combinations thereof in one of my sessions? As long as I get back what I
ask for, I don't see what difference it makes.
Ciao,
Rex
At 6:53 PM -0400 6/12/02, Eilon Reshef wrote:
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