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

[Richard Cieply <CIEPLY@de.ibm.com>]

I totally agree with Andre.
I also would strongly vote for making the shared context explicit.

Just for my understanding:
We introduced the initEnvironment to allow (or help) the producer to
initialize any producer mediated sharing, i.e. using HTTP cookies to store
some sharing information.
I think saying that initEnvironment solves the shared session entirely is
not quite correct. It does so by using HTTP cookies for this purpose,  but
what if the producer doesn't want to use transport level mechanisms here?
initEnvironment passes only the registrationContext to the producer
(assuming we would drop groupID) and returns nothing.
How can the producer establish a shared context then (in what scope)? How
can the consumer pass the hint of the shared context back to the producer?
The producer could do so by implicitly using the contexts passed with
getMarkup and performInteraction to generate a shared context and use it on
succeeding calls.
But is the initEnvironment needed in this case? Again, I think we
introduced initEnvironment to help the producer to deal with transport
level issues and load balanced environments.
For me it seems that initEnvironment and the introduction of groupID are
slightly different concepts.

If we drop the explicit shared context, I think we will loose some
functionality.
For example a single user using two colaborating entitíes twice.

By the way: I think Andes proposal to use the wording environmentID is
good.

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,

        Richard Cieply
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:cieply@de.ibm.com


|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           Andre Kramer     |
|         |           <andre.kramer@eu.|
|         |           citrix.com>      |
|         |                            |
|         |           09/30/2002 03:17 |
|         |           PM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |       To:       "'wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'" <wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                              |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                                        |
  |       Subject:  RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?                                                                                |
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|



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.