[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfacesdocument
Rich, Ultimately I believe the producer is in charge, as it needs to defend against consumers who hold many "temporary" objects over long periods. I've not caught up with all the email discussion on this topic but can see one possible use case for transients (a sort of stateless Portlet): user logs into (WSRP consumer) portal portal loads user prefs from local db portal up-loads prefs to producer (WSRP portlet service) creating a "transient" entity portal asks remote producer to render "transient" user logs out & portal destroys remote "transient" portal saves any user pref changes to local db However, it seems much more natural to store the prefs at the producer and uploading prefs each time may be costly in terms of nw bandwidth. Instead, it may be useful to have an "instance" scope on sessions. This would allow for both shared (between portlets at a producer) and private session data (per protlet), under the control of the consumer (per user or per consumer or consumer side group or role). This would be similar to a "transient" with lifetime bounded by a session (I know this was objected to)? Sessions are preferable to me as they are available in all requests. i.e. it is unclear to me how a transient entity can be used in the rendering of another (aka persistent entity) portlet (here, the session is part of the request context). Temporary result objects can be held in the consumer session. Again, I would prefer all state to be kept in the producer (rather than being uploaded with each request a la view state or managed by *remote reference* a la request-result transient entities). If the consumer considers one or more portlets to be part of one logical application and one or more other portlets (at the same producer) to be part of another application then I think it is natural for the consumer to create two sessions (a sort of application scope for remote portlet maintained by the consumer as distinct sessions). -- Andre -----Original Message----- From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] Sent: 11 June 2002 15:50 To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfaces document I started several replies and then realized I really needed to ask a clarifying question first. When you say "I view persistency as a continuous rather than an all or nothing property (degree determined by the producer)" do you mean that the entity will continuously persist whatever portion of its state is declared to be peristent OR do you mean that the producer exerts control over what portion of its state is persisted? Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu. To: Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, wsia@lists.oasis-open.org, citrix.com> wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org cc: 06/11/2002 04:00 Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged AM interfaces document Rich, Thanks for your quick reply to my questions. On the need for "transients", I still do not see why (or how) the *consumer* needs to decide to call createTransientEntity or createPersistentEntity. If this is only a hint that the lifetime is bounded by a session then why not just include a sessionId as a create argument? Also, I view persistency as a continuous rather than an all or nothing property (degree determined by the producer). -- Andre -----Original Message----- From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] Sent: 10 June 2002 18:21 To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfaces document We have to work through the array idea as it as big performance implications and I don't see any indications that call batching at the SOAP stack level will be available in a relatively short timeframe. My understanding from the WSRP interfaces discussions is that a template is a portal concept. It is effectively a configured portlet that is used from a toolbox to design pages. The concept of an instance is a configured portlet that is linked to the layout of a portal page. This configuration MAY have come from cloning a template. From the perspective of what the Producer needs to support, both of these are particular configurations of an entity the service exposes with the Consumer choosing to use them in different ways. I have been searching for reasons why there would be a difference for the entity, but haven't found one yet. If I understand your question about transient entities correctly, you see why sessions should be separated from entities so that they can be shared but question whether services will ever expose entities that aren't persistent. I can certainly imagine entities with no persistence (the service that hosts them likely has some persistence of who may use them along with some use log for audit & billing purposes). A simple entity that puts a UI on a stock ticker feed may be a good example. It chooses to delegate all the billing issues to the service where it is deployed and all the configuration persistence to its Consumers. In this case, createPersistentEntities() would always fail as only transient entities are supported. Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu. To: Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, wsia@lists.oasis-open.org, citrix.com> wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org cc: 06/10/2002 10:37 Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged AM interfaces document Supporting a batch operation mode through arrays does not seem very clean. In the "getFragment" case (getFragments?), the portal will most likely then have to wait until the whole array is returned (i.e. all remote portlets have rendered) before it can display the resulting mark-up. How many consumer to producer parallel calls do we expect typically? I would rather leave call batching up to the (future) SOAP stack. Always using "Entity" as the thing to create remotely seem to loose the "class" versus "object" semantics that the WSRP "template" and "instance" operation names used to imply. Do we now see no no difference between remote data storage - 'templates' (possibly with inheritance) and computational entities - 'instances', that WSRP seems to naturally call for? Or are these the persistent v.s. transient entities of the document (for me, portlet instances persist too)? In trying to follow the discussion, I'm confused as to why we need both sessions and transient entities, both being under the control of the consumer. I do see a need for common sessions (same user/group or consumer portal) but do not see the need for other transient entities, expecting a consumer to have to pay for all entities, in some way, in the real world. I know the next call will discuss these but could someone give a brief rational before then? Thanks, Andre Andre Kramer, Citrix Systems, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] Sent: 07 June 2002 20:38 To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfaces document Here is a draft of the merged interfaces document that Carsten and I have been working on this week. The largest conceptual change from the previous 0.44 Joint Spec Draft is the appearance of arrays in most of the operations. This allows Consumers on the scale of portals to efficiently interact with Producer services. (See attached file: WSIA - WSRP Interface Specification.doc) ---------------------------------------------------------------- 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