OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp-wsia message

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


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



Yossi - I think the statement should be "I disagree with Mike" and "it is a
bad design".

1. From my understanding the JSR168 issue is the following:
- JSR 168 defines an application scope (per user session), i.e. that all
portlets within an application within a user session need to be able to
share data
- portlets that are in two different applications cannot share data (no
global producer scope)

If this is correct then the JSR168 restriction to WSRP would mean that the
groupID must correspond to the application ID of portlets in the producer
and not to the producer ID. The producer can expose multiple applications
as WSRP services.
If we used the groupID on a per producer basis ignoring the application
scope of JSR then the producer would have to do addinional namespacing to
isolate the applications.

2. I agree with Andre's comment that initInvironment is bad design. It
relies on a side effect (namely the fact that by this call a HTTP session
is established and the transport level cookie is used as a hidden
environment identifier). If some of us really need this initEnvironment
call then it must take the groupID as a parameter (the groupID is then the
explicit environment identifier).

Summary: I do not see a valid reason to get rid of the groupID.

Best regards
Carsten Leue

-------
Dr. Carsten Leue
Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory B÷blingen , Germany
Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401



|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Tamari, Yossi"  |
|         |           <yossi.tamari@sap|
|         |           .com>            |
|         |                            |
|         |           09/30/2002 04:27 |
|         |           PM               |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                               |
  |       To:       wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org                                                                                |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                     |
  |       Subject:  RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?                                                             |
  |                                                                                                                               |
  |                                                                                                                               |
  >-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|



I am having trouble following the discussion thread here. Mike claims that
(at least for 1.0) the groupId must always be semantically identical to the
producer ID. Since a producer knows what is the producer it is running in
(I know this sentence does not make a lot of sense, but that is exactly my
problem here), there is no need to pass the groupId.
So it seems to me you can make one of two statements: "I disagree with
Mike" or "groupId is redundant".
We are not depending on any transport layer element here, which is one of
the reasons I don't understand Andre's comment.

             Yossi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:15 PM
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>

----------------------------------------------------------------
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