You are the second person who commented on the order of the columns ... is
the consensus that should they be inverted?
In looking at your gif, I would say you captured the essense of things
reasonably. Changes I would suggest include:
- The WSIA/WSRP interface/protocol do not participate in the Web Browser
to Web Server connection. Maybe someday we will have browsers that can act
as Consumers, but since todays browsers are not aware of our protocol it
will confuse readers to imply the protocol applies.
- While it may be a common occurence that a Consumer chooses to initiate a
Session as a result of the browser connection, that is an implementation
choice of the Consumer rather than a protocol specified aspect.
- As was mentioned relative to the glossary today, the generalized term
for what was a portlet is an entity. It would be good to eliminate the
redundant terms everywhere.
- I would suggest that the last paragraph above the Consumer read:
Consumer may choose to partition entities into sessions however it
sees fit,
subject to the Producer enforcing any policies it has regarding
session sharing.
- Not sure exactly what the last paragraph above Producer means ... may
just need clarification.
Do others find this gif useful ... should it be included in the followon to
the 0.1.2 document?
Rex Brooks
<rexb@starbourne. To: Eilon Reshef <>, "'Rex Brooks'"
com> <>, ,
06/13/2002 01:50 cc:
PM Subject: RE: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities
As I was trying to get this process down to the most basic and simple, I
diagrammed it using a component diagram. The problem I had with the chart
in the 0.1.2 version of the spec is that it read right to left in terms of
the flow from the origination of the process with an end user request. I
know that this was done because the end point of the process is the
end-user but I wasn't able to keep the flow straight in my mind as I read
down over the four pages it spans. Also, it covers just about all the
variations of flow and types of properties, entities and calls. I found I
was better able to use that chart with this diagram in hand. However, I
still have problems following Sophisticated to Simple and Simple to
Sophisticated within the chart context.
Also, it would be helpful to know if what I diagrammed is essentially
correct or not, so I attached it. it is a .gif file so you can view it in a
web browser or insert it into another program to view it.
Thanks,
Rex
At 9:09 PM -0400 6/12/02, Eilon Reshef wrote:
Rex, We are all trying to simplify the interface. If we can achieve the
same results (namely, Portlet Grouping/Scoping) without the need to have an
explicit interface for creating sessions, we are all better off. Eilon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Brooks [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 8:39 PM
To: Eilon Reshef; ;
Subject: RE: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities
I think we are already getting down to too much micromanaging. Why should I
care how a producer manages their portlets, transient entities or any
combinations thereof in one of my sessions? As long as I get back what I
ask for, I don't see what difference it makes.
Ciao,Rex
At 6:53 PM -0400 6/12/02, Eilon Reshef wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to just pass a key (say: portlet-group-id), that
allows the Producer to manage this more carefully than providing access to
a low-level mechanism such a session?
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich Thompson [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 12:27 PM
To: ;
Subject: [wsia] Re: RE: [wsrp] Sessions and Transient Entities
I would agree that supporting explicit creation of sessions is easy means
for a Consumer to indicate an arbitrary grouping that it would like to
establish. As the Producer is ultimately managing the sessions, it can
always enforce whatever policies it would like on these groupings. I would
recommend that this version of the spec not try and define how a Producer
could expose such policies to the Consumer, though we may want to revisit
this question for future versions of the spec if scenarios are defined that
demonstrate value to the Consumer in knowing the Producer's policies.
"MICHAEL.FREEDMAN"
<MICHAEL.FREEDMAN@ To:
,
oracle.com> cc:
Subject: Re: RE: [wsrp]
Sessions and Transient Entities
06/12/2002 10:58
AM
Irs not so much a bother to allow rather its a no reason to prevent. If a
consumer wants to support such a thing they should be free to do so as this
would allow arbitrary groupings (from the perspective of the producer).
-Mike-
face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff>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)?
class=122592900-12062002>
class=122592900-12062002> -----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:
face="Trebuchet MS">Mike, class=731155222-11062002>
face="Trebuchet MS">Per your recent e-mails, I think that
the
approach makes sense. class=731155222-11062002> face
="Trebuchet MS">The only thing that concerns me is that
we
have two different mechanisms to handle what would seem
to be a very similar
scenario. class=731155222-11062002>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. class=731155222-11062002>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. class=731155222-11062002> face
="Trebuchet MS">(All, of course, assuming that the
portlets use sessions) class=731155222-11062002> face
="Trebuchet MS">The idea of the Consumer creating and
managing the segregation keys has the
scalability advantage that you mentioned.
class=731155222-11062002> class=731155222-11062002> face
="Trebuchet MS">Can't we use it to handle both
scenarios? class=731155222-11062002>
class=731155222-11062002> size=-1>Namely:
class=731155222-11062002> class=731155222-11062002> face
="Trebuchet MS">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. class=731155222-11062002> face
="Trebuchet MS">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. class=731155222-11062002> class=731155222-11062002>
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. class=731155222-11062002>
class=731155222-11062002> face="Trebuchet MS">Eilon
class=731155222-11062002> class=731155222-11062002>
----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
--
--
#### WSIA-WSRP_Joint_Interface.gif has been removed from this note on June
13 2002 by Rich Thompson
