[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec0.43]Terminology
I have been and continue to be "confused" by this notion that the session implies the instance. I had a short conversation with Rich after Tuesday call in which my confusion became apparent -- however I have been unable to turn the corner. My point of view comes from the web model. A session scopes a user's transient information within a server/application across all components of the server/application. I.e. If a portal user has two portlets from the same portlet service on a page they run in the same session (note the scoping isn't limited to the page -- rather its the client which is the portal). Therefore I expect sessions to be orthogonal to instances. In fact I expect (because consumers may concurrently send multiple requests to multiple instances within the same service) that consumers will need to explicitly request a session be created prior to doing any instance operations. I.e. even the createEntity() call needs to take a sessionId. Rich mentioned something about this still being modeled by the session per instance case if the producer views sessions in a tree. Thus there may be one internal session onto which these external sessions are mapped. Though I imagine this could be done it seems to complicate the service/portlet implementation significantly -- I wouldn't want to write a portlet in such a world without someone building the basic container for me. Nor would I want to map it back to the web world (aka servlets). Is my confusion stemming from having a web point of view vs. a distributed object view? Or is there confusion because I view portlets/instances as entities contained by the service vs. being a services themselves? -Mike- Carsten Leue wrote: > Mike - I am concerned about your proposition to pass both the session and > instance handle to markup and action calls. Wouldn't the session imply the > instance? > > Best regards > Carsten Leue > > ------- > Dr. Carsten Leue > Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany > Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401 > > |---------+-----------------------------> > | | Michael Freedman | > | | <Michael.Freedman@| > | | oracle.com> | > | | | > | | 05/23/2002 12:53 | > | | AM | > | | Please respond to | > | | Michael Freedman | > | | | > |---------+-----------------------------> > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > | | > | To: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com> | > | cc: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org, wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org | > | Subject: Re: [wsrp][wsia][wsrp-wsia joint interfaces][Draft Spec 0.43]Terminology | > | | > | | > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| > > Rich, > I like your terminology much better. I have done a quick review of Gil's > updated document and here are a few initial comments: > > 1) I agree we should ignore the shared transient information "type". > 2) I think the specification should recognize the per consumer scope. I > understand a producer will be able to manage this scope transparently once > we > add a registration handle but I don't think that just because it can be > inferred from the model we should ignore it (from the spec/description). > 3) The definition of the "persistent information" type needs to be > tightened. > As written it implies a relationship with User transient information as > both > are claimed to be scoped to a user. Whereas a session is scoped one-to-one > to > a user I don't believe persistent information is scoped one-to-one to a > user. > Rather I believe we have discussed situations where the mapping is 1 to N. > I.e. the producer may be asked to operate on the sample persistent entity > for > differing concurrent user (sessions). This seems to imply that the scope > of > "persistent information" is whatever the consumer chooses it to be. > > On the operations themselves: > 1) createEntity (aka createTemplate). In WSRP we have discussed requiring > consumers register with a producer to "activate" it. Registration returns > an > 'activation' handle used in subsequent calls to identify the consumer. How > can > we account for this with the createEntity (and other) APIs? I really, > really, > really, don't want this to be an property value. Also what is the actual > intent of these property lists? Gil implies they are persistence presets. > If > so should we have a separate list parameter that allow the consumer to > further > qualify the Entity being created? I.e. in WSRP portlets aren't the direct > producer -- they are managed/contained by the producer. We will want to > use > the createEntity call to create/be tied to these subtypes -- hence need > someway > to qualify it in the call. Finally, are we assuming the service never > wants to > programmatically authorize this operation? If not, don't we need to pass > User > identity and roles as well? > > 2) destroyEntity (aka destroyTemplate). Since we seem to want to support > creating new entities from existing one's do we want to support cascading > delete? If not we likely should support bulk deletes. [Note: should we > consider bulk create as well for import/export/publish purposes?] As with > create entity the consumer ID should be passed. > > 3) Gil's description implies session must be created as these handles are > passed to subsequent calls. Your usage is more ambiguous. Do we intend > that > Entity handle and session ID will be passed as separate parameters to > subsequent calls? I hope so. Also we may need to begin drilling into the > issues related to detecting/dealing with session timeout and reacquisition > sooner rather then later. > 'nough for now, > -Mike- > > Rich Thompson wrote: > > > Presuming the 2nd case to get dropped relative to the previous set of > > emails, I would propose this section call out how we will refer to these > > things throughout the remainder of the document/API. In particular, I > would > > suggest: > > Session Information - This is carried opaquely in the interface as > a > > "sessionID". > > => goes away > > Persistent Information - This is carried opaquely in the interface > as > > a "handle". > > > > Rather than "Manifestation", I would propose using "Entity" to describe > the > > thing from which markup may be requested. I think it has the right level > of > > opacity (Consumer has no idea what kind of entity it is) while carrying > > appropriate semantics (a thing that may be interacted with). Using these > > terms, there was also an open question at the end of our last call > related > > to whether there were both persistent and transient entities ... > > > > If we are going to support explicit lifecycle for both of these, I would > > propose: > > handle createEntity(handle, propertyValues) > > sessionID createSession(handle, propertyValues) > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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