> I'm baffled.
There was, and still is, some confusion over this issue. Let's discuss it
on the call tommorow.
Darren
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orchard, David [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:52 PM
> To: Evan Prodromou; UseCaseList
> Subject: RE: Ballot Attached - Group 3: Sessions
>
>
> I'm baffled. I have always wanted explicit scenarios showing differences
> between logout and timeout. I originally wanted to make the scenarios
> explicit to show logout/timeout separately (and votable separately), hence
> my first submission. These are the only user or system actions
> that result
> in changes of state. These seemed to be the only things that are
> applicable
> for session to me. It was my thinking that if you approve either
> timeout or
> logout, you have approved a form of session. I was instructed to keep the
> numbering and use cases roughly as is - specifically UC-3-1 session. I
> didn't agree at the time, but did it anyways, the 2nd /final submission.
>
> It now looks like a good thing because some people appear to want session
> mgmt, but not logout and/or timeout. This gives us a mechanism to approve
> the topic, and then dive into the details of what these mean. If we had
> done what I suggested, then we might not have approved session management,
> even if sufficient people wanted some form of it. Now that we
> have approved
> the concept of session management, we can start trying to figure out what
> the detailed requirements and design..
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Evan Prodromou [mailto:]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 12:14 AM
> > To: UseCaseList
> > Subject: Re: Ballot Attached - Group 3: Sessions
> >
> >
> > >>>>> "EP" == Evan Prodromou <> writes:
> >
> > JH> rationale: I believe this is subsummed within the topic of
> > JH> [UC-3-1:UserSession] and we should deal with it explicitly in
> > JH> that context.
> >
> > EP> So, I'm kind of confused by this rationale.
> >
> > Actually, on review, I've noticed that it was actually David's idea to
> > remove these requirements. I still don't understand why, but I see I
> > was directing my questions at the wrong person.
> >
> > David: why? B-) I find this even more puzzling, because those were
> > req'ts pulled out of ITML and posted to this list. Was there a reason
> > you didn't want the explicit logout, timeout, etc. requirements?
> >
> > ~ESP
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> > "unsubscribe" in the body to:
> >
> >
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to:
>
