I'm not convinced that we should make this a required feature.
The shared session context provided here is really a loaded gun.
I'm afraid developers will use this not only for coordination purposes but
also for private data collection purposes.
Our experience is exactly this behavior. The biggest can they can get, they
stuff it in, because it's convenient.
And we had various talks about whether we enable a "better" world and try
to teach, or whether we take some current practices as a given and don't
support them (well), e.g. the famous method=GET discussion was one example
here.
We really need to be carefull in order to allow Consumers to remain
scalable. Experience shows that blowing up the session size is one of the
main scaling prohibitors.
I think it's a big difference between storing only the wsrp session ID in
the Consumer's session and a large amount of portlet data.
Consumers should be free to reduce the amount of resources they want to
offer here.
Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,
Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
WSRP Team Lead & Technical Lead
WSRP Standardization
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com
Subbu Allamaraju
<subbu@bea.com>
To
10/24/05 05:24 PM wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
Re: [wsrp] (Required feature?)
Transient property follow up
I agree with the language proposed below. Of course, we need to read it
in the context of the spec :)
On the naming issue, I agree with Mike's concerns on extensibility in
future versions of the sepc as well vendors. The term "transient" is
more extensible.
Subbu
Rich Thompson wrote:
But the equivalence would only hold if the scope is wsrp:portletSession.
Since we are defining a scope related to the End-User's interactions
with the Consumer, I would think any requirements should relate to those
interactions rather than the interactions of the Consumer with the
portlet. Perhaps something like:
The Consumer MUST initiate the wsrp:consumerSession scope whenever a new
set of interactions with an End-User are initiated and MUST NOT
terminate this scope until either those interactions cease or resources
related to the End-User's interactions are released due to inactivity.
The Consumer MUST NOT automatically null out all settings of transient
property values within the wsrp:consumerSession scope.
I think this pair ends up making the feature required of Consumers,
provides a distinct definition of the scope and makes transient
properties usable by portlet developers.
Any thoughts on renaming this feature to "Session Properties"?
Rich
*Michael Freedman <michael.freedman@oracle.com>*
10/19/05 03:33 PM
To
Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc
wsrp <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
Re: [wsrp] (Required feature?) Transient property follow up
For the portlet that is deciding to use the session Transient property
as an alternaitve to storing state it might otherwise store in a
portletSession wouldn't there be an interest in whether or not there is
a relationship in how the consumer manages these two? My point in
making them equivalent is that portletSession becomes opaque or private
session data while consumerSessionScoped transient property become
public session data.
-Mike-
Rich Thompson wrote:
Your two questions are sufficiently different that I suggest splitting
the discussion into two threads.
Relative to making Transient Properties a required feature. I would
agree that for this feature to be truly useful, portlet developers need
to have it be dependable. Any arguments against making it required?
If we do make this a required feature, I don't think it is the lifetime
that needs to be clarified. Rather, it is prohibiting a claim for
support that simply has a Consumer component which always sets property
values to null.
On a similar note, I have been thinking lately that a better name for
these would be "Session Properties". Transient Properties is a bit too
ambiguous and tends to raise the questions about why both these and
Navigation Parameters. No matter what additional scopes are defined,
what we have defined is semantically an extension of the Portlet's
session.
Rich
*Michael Freedman **_<michael.freedman@oracle.com>_*
<mailto:michael.freedman@oracle.com>
10/18/05 03:21 PM
To
wsrp _<wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>_ <
mailto:wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
[wsrp] Transient property follow up
A couple of questions/issues I came up with post F2F on Transient
properties:
1. Should the meta data that describes transient properties be
improved to support a notion of aliasing?
Is there value in distinguishing between the name the portlet receives
the transient property as and the set of [coordination] names that
identify this property to the consumer? The use case is two [sets of]
portlets that are developed independently each with their own
namespace/vocabulary for properties sometime afterwards understanding
that coordination could also occur between them because the property
[semantics] are the same. Current model requires the one/both to change
its implementation with potential backwards compatibility impacts. We
could however offer another field in the TransientPropertyDescription
that is an array of aliases which identify other identities of the same
property. Should we add this to our 2.0 design?
2. By defining a specific/known duration for consumerSession
scope can we make this a required feature in 2.0?
My understanding from our F2F discussions is that producers couldn't
rely on transient properties to hold internal state because though we
required support for this feature we said it was valid for the consumer
to claim support by merely always sending/representing a null value
[i.e. value always out of scope]. I think this is a severly restricts
the value of transient properties and makes them more akin to
NavigationalParameters. Since all we are defining is the
consumerSession Scope and that we though unstated this scope is
implied/must exist in WSRP 1.0 to support managing portletSessions can
we stengthen our proposal by requiring that a transientProperty of
consumerSessionScope must be maintained for the exact amount of time
that the consumer maintains the portlet's session assuming that portlet
session has an infinite lifetime from the perspective of the producer?
[I.e. portlet session timeouts aren't a factor in this]. By equating
this transientProperty scope to the same scope that the consumer manages
portletSessions on we create an equivalence between the management of
public session state and opaque session state meaning the portlet can
now depend on the public state.
-Mike-
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS at:
_https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php_
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS at:
_https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php_
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To
unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php