[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