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?



Hi Yossi,

I think the use cases 1 and 2 are desireable.
If we ignored the third case, we would introduce the collaborating/data
sharing concept through a backdoor, say we would define that if some kind
of grouping is required then one must use HTTP cookies in conjuction with
initEnvironment for this purpose.
I would consider this implicit usage of underlying transport protocols as
'bad design' and therefor would say that if we want to have data
sharing/collaboration/grouping in the spec then we should reflect this in
the protocol directly.
Again I think initEnvironment was introduced to help the producer dealing
with transport protocol issues and load balanced environments. Then the
idea come up to map HTTP cookies to groupIDs which might be ONE possible
implementation, please correct me if I'm wrong.
If we drop the groupID (and don't rely on HTTP cookies for the grouping
purpose) then there are the following options:
1. entities do not share data at all
This would prevent use case 1 and 2 (and maybe some more :-))
2. all entities from the producer share data
Allows for use case 1 as long as the groups are disjunkt. Naturally
prevents use case 2 as the groups are not disjunct.
Then the producer "manages" the "groups" internally by namespacing or other
mechanisms, but de facto there are no groups. Or one could say that there
is per se only 1 application per producer - the issues around this have
already been mentioned (like one URL per application, say portal = multiple
producers, load balancing on user id basis,...)

best regards

Richard.




|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           "Tamari, Yossi"  |
|         |           <yossi.tamari@sap|
|         |           .com>            |
|         |                            |
|         |           10/01/2002 10:42 |
|         |           AM               |
|         |                            |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |       To:       "'wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'" <wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                              |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                                        |
  |       Subject:  RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?                                                                                |
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|



Let me try to summarize the discussion semi-objectively:

Three use cases have been put up that require that groupId:
1. A user has portlets A1 and B1 in one group, and C1 and D1 in another
group, but they are all part of the same web-app. The consumer is the one
that defines the partitioning to groups.
2. A user has portlets A1 and B1 in one group, and A2 and B2 in another
group, where the pairs A1/A2 and B1/B2 are clones of the same pair of
portlets. This is really just a special case of 1, where C1=A2 and D1=B2.
3. The groupId is not used to achieve HTTP session (cookie) sharing, but
some other kind of collaboration between/data sharing between portlets.

My personal problem with these 3 use cases are that they are not what we
defined sessionId for initially (in the 2nd F2F), and they seem to belong
to the coordinated use case, which we deferred to a future version of the
spec.

However if we accept these use cases, than I agree with Andre that
initEnvironment should not be required in order to use groupId, since it
may be that the producer is not load-balanced (it is obviously not using
sessions in the 3rd case), or is using some private locking mechanism.
If we decide to ignore the 3rd use case, then once again I do not see the
need for groupId since this partitioning can be achieved by calling
initEnvironment for each group, and then using the portlets within this
group with the cookies received for the matching initEnvironment.

What I am trying to say here is that we are not clear on how this "feature"
should/will be used once it is in the spec, and we should first decide on
this (what are the valid use cases), and then we can probably agree on the
implementation.

             Yossi.

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Cieply [mailto:CIEPLY@de.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, September 30, 2002 5:43 PM
To: Andre Kramer
Cc: 'wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#6]Update: Is groupId required?



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.





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