Title: Message
Can you please elaborate on this - what would be a working scenario where
a Consumer decides to group portlets without the portlets pre-programmed to be
shareable?
-----Original Message-----
From: Carsten Leue
[mailto:]
Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 12:21
PM
To: Eilon Reshef
Cc: 'Michael Freedman';
;
Subject: Re:
[wsia] RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities
Eilon -
because the consumer may want to decide which portlets to
group together in
a session. The producer would not be
able to do so.
Best regards
Carsten Leue
-------
Dr. Carsten Leue
Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory B鐽lingen , Germany
Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401
|---------+----------------------------->
|
| Eilon
Reshef |
|
|
<eilon.reshef@webc|
|
|
ollage.com> |
|
|
|
|
| 06/12/2002
02:49 |
|
|
AM
|
|
| Please respond
to |
|
| Eilon
Reshef |
|
|
|
|---------+----------------------------->
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|
|
|
To: "'Michael Freedman'"
<>, ,
|
|
cc:
|
| Subject:
[wsia] RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient
Entities
|
|
|
|
|
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
If a simple group-id within the portlet UI takes care of the
issue (which I
agree with), why bother to allow the
Consumer to create and manage sessions
explicitly
(versus implicit creation by the Producer)?
-----Original Message-----
From:
Michael Freedman [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 7:43 PM
To: ;
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities
Eilon,
I think your suggestion
intermixes 2 different concepts -- that of
session identity and that of
instance/entity identity. My scenario 1
concerns itself with how an
instance/entity id can be used to segment
data within a session. My scenario
2 concerns itself with how
distinct sessions can be
established/maintained. I suggested we
don't define a way for the producer to
describe its grouping rules.
Rather a consumer can choose to support
grouping (via a mechanism its
free to define) or leave it up to the
consumer to handle internally
(via perference/configuration
data). So in my scenario 2, a consumer
isn't responsible for separating the
portlets into different
sessions. It merely is allowed to do so. Portlets must assume
they
aren't running in
such environments -- rather they must assume they
run in a shared session world -- hence
they need an ID to do the
proper namespacing. As the
consumer doesn't know this grouping
(because it doesn't implement grouping)
the producer must provide its
own UI for getting these keys -- i.e.
the producer must provide a
configuration/personalization UI that
allows a group key to be
specified for each of its portlets -- it
can then use this "internal"
group id to key/separate data in the
shared session.
Just a long way of saying -- I
don't buy your scenario 2. If the
consumer knows the grouping, I would
rather the consumer maintain 2
discrete sessions as this allows it to
continue to pass the entity id
so each entity can maintain entity
specific data if necessary (i.e.
portlet A, B, B' in the same
session/group -- B and B' can keep their
data separate). If the consumer
doesn't know the grouping then it
controls things just like scenario
1. The producer is free to
define/manage finer granularity as
described above.
-Mike-
Eilon Reshef wrote:
Mike,Per your recent e-mails, I think that the approach makes
sense.The only thing that concerns me is that we have two
different mechanisms to handle what would seem to be a very
similar scenario.Scenario 1: If there are two occurrences of a
single portlet on a page, then as you described it the portlet
is
responsible for segregating the occurrence-specific
information, using an additional key provided by the
portal.Scenario 2: If there are two occurrences of a pair of
portlets, then suddenly the portal is responsible for
segregating the two pairs by placing them in two separate
sessions.(All, of course, assuming that the portlets use
sessions)The idea of the Consumer creating and managing the
segregation keys has the scalability advantage that you
mentioned.Can't we use it to handle both scenarios?Namely:In
scenario 1, where there's portlets A1 and A2, then the portal
sends a key "1" when displaying A1 and a key "2" when
displaying A2. In scenario 2, when there's portlet pairs <A1,
B1> and <A2, B2>, then the portal sends a key "1" when
displaying A1 and B1 and the key "2" when displaying A2 and
B2.This would allow the Producer to create and manage the
session id (and maybe even create them only when needed,
instead of explicitly creating them up-front as the current
draft suggests). The Consumer only has to take into account
that
it may receive (and needs to re-send) a separate session
id
for each one of the keys.Eilon
