[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp] spec-2.0-draft-05: lifetime interfaces: metadatarequired?
Yes, consumers that don't support renewal would have to be careful in using producers that offer the lifetime management ports, as leases would just expire if lifetimes are ignored. So as a minimum, consumers need to check 2.o offered ports. Turing this around somewhat: are we looking for a way to allow a consumer to say it does not support leasing and would not supplying an lifetime element value to factories be a legacy sustaining way to do this? Regards, Andre -----Original Message----- From: Richard Jacob [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Sent: 04 March 2005 12:42 To: Andre Kramer Cc: email@example.com Subject: RE: [wsrp] spec-2.0-draft-05: lifetime interfaces: metadatarequired? "Andre Kramer" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 03/04/2005 01:17:29 PM: > I would expect leasing to be detailed in a high level service level > agreement so did not consider service description metadata necessary. > Also, there is little opportunity for consumers to do much more than > renew leases as requested by producers and I expect leasing schedules to > evolve sensible, quite long termed values (e.g. order of weeks). totally agree > > We did discuss signally whether or not leasing is in use (producers > returning no lifetime element demands explicit destroys) and possibly > consumers signaling a desire to lease (by adding a lifetime element to > their requests) once a producer signals leasing being an option via > exposing the optional ports. in general I agree, but there is no means for consumer which can't renew (because they simply do not support lifetime management) to no access a producer which actually *requires* life time management. In the current draft it seems to me that we really require consumers to manage lifetime. With the service description (could be a simpler one) Consumers could still choose to not interop with prodcucers requiring lifetime management. > > Regards, > Andre > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Jacob [mailto:email@example.com] > Sent: 04 March 2005 11:32 > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > Subject: [wsrp] spec-2.0-draft-05: lifetime interfaces: metadata > required? > > Hi all, > > - the current approach forces Consumers to use the lifetime operations > whenever the producer requires them (makes sense of course :-) ), i.e. > if > the Producer sets the lifetime in the according context structures > (RegCtx&PortletCtx). > Don't we lock out Consumers not supporting these operations from using > Producers requiring lifetime management even if the Producer supports > "infinite" lifetime? > The questions I'm targetting at are: > Do we need metadata in the ServiceDescription and PortletDescription > about > the lifetime requirements? > > I could imagine a lifetimeDecsription like: > <LifetimeDescription> > <maxLifeTime> (in seconds) > <maxRefreshDuration> (in seconds) > </LifetimeDescription> > with > maxLifeTome=null -> infinite lifetime possible, explicit destruction > supported > maxLifeTime=xxx -> requestor not allowed to set this longer than the > period > specified > with > maxRefreshDuration=0 -> no automatic refresh, need explicit refresh > maxRefreshDuration=xxx -> automatic refresh, requestor not allowed to > set > this longer than specified here > > In this case Consumers not supporting lifetime management could still > use > Producers which in general support lifetime management but allow also > for > infinite lifetime, i.e. explicit destroy. > Consumers not supporting lifetime management could opt to not use > Producers/Portlets which enforce lifetime management. > > Otherwise we will lock out Consumers willing to support 2.0 but not > willing > to manage lifetime. > > Another question is: > Producers could choose to support infinite lifetime for certain > Consumers > only (i.e. special registration) but for null registrations or > "try-and-buy" registrations only a limited lifetime. Do we need to > express > this in the metadata? > > Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards, > > Richard Jacob > ______________________________________________________ > IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany > Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development > WSRP Standardization Technical Lead > Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888 > Email: mailto:email@example.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org > For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org > For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com >