wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass requestedLifetime to relevant operations
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: WSRP <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 15:43:25 -0500
I had agreed to look through the wsrf/wsn
repositories to locate their current draft spec versions related to lifetime
issues.
Basically, wsrf (Web ServicesResource
Framework) stays away from questions regarding factories that might produce
resource though wsrf-rl does deal with the lifetime characteristics of
resources. There are a few other standards that are seeking to leverage
wsrf, one of which is wsn (Web Services Notification). The subscribe factory
from wsn does take an InitialTerminationTime as an input parameter. This
was the resolved factory issue I recalled which has semantics equivalent
to our issue #32.
The basic discussion thread leading
up to the wsn resolution to include this parameter was:
1. It optimizes the common situation
when a resource is created of a Consumer wanting a different lifetime than
the Producer is willing to give.
2. The Producer is free to not
honor the request much as it can on requests sent to setLifetime.
To these I think we could add the presence
of such a parameter carrying the semantics of the Consumer preferring the
new portlet to be managed on a lease basis.
The most recent specs I refer to are
located at:
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrf/2004/11/wsrf-WS-ResourceLifetime-1.2-draft-04.pdf
http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsn/2004/06/wsn-WS-BaseNotification-1.2-draft-03.pdf
Rich
Andre Kramer <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>
12/22/04 10:15 AM
|
To
| Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS,
WSRP <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass
requestedLifetime to relevant opreatio ns |
|
One thing to keep in mind is
that producers may not particularly respect consumer requests and consumers
adjusting is more likely when the termination time nears (so as to be favorably
viewed by the resource maintainer). Therefore, I did not include a requestedLifetime
in all operations.
Regards,
Andre
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 22 December 2004 03:09
To: WSRP
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass requestedLifetime to relevant opreations
I believe this was one where you were the source :}
The reasoning is that if the Consumer doesn't have a chance to request
a particular lifetime, there will be an additional network round trip just
to do an initial setup.
This is one where I could easily be convinced either way. Draft 04 has
it that the Consumer discovers that the Producer is using scheduled destruction
by the appearance of a lifetime in the reply. I suspect Consumers would
then add this as a resource to manage relative to the renewal of the lease
and therefore not incur an additional roundtrip. The flip side is that
if the Producer is using leased resources (Consumer should be able to tell
by support for the respective portTypes), why shouldn't the Consumer get
a chance to indicate its preference for the initial timeout?
Rich
Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>
12/21/2004 12:55 PM
|
To
| WSRP <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass
requestedLifetime to relevant opreations |
|
Why?
Rich Thompson wrote:
Issue # 32
Spec section:
SubCommittee: Interfaces
Owner: Andre
Description: Operations
expected to return a Lifetime should also take one as input. This would
affect register, modifyRegistration, clonePortlet, exportPortlets, copyPortlets.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]