Next in thread →
Next in month →
Re: [wsrp-interop] on initCookies and sessionID
I would also encourage Consumers to block all invocations targeting portlets within a particular group once it is known that the cookies being passed to that group are invalid. Re-establishing those cookies and then processing the blocked invocations with the new cookie set makes for the cleanest set of calls (i.e. consistent state). Rich Michael Freedman <> 11/19/2003 02:57 PM To cc Subject Re: [wsrp-interop] on initCookies and sessionID This can only be done if templates [or other consumer supplied state] isn't stored in the entity session. Note: Currently we only have the concept of storing this in the entity session not in relationship to a cookie session. If the producer needs to formally represent entity sessions [because of needing to re-receive consumer supplied state] then it should return the entity session key it is using within the http session to hold the entities state. Often this will be the entity ID itself [but need not be]. In any case I don't understand how things get weird/out-of-sync in Alejandro's case as the systems should work anyway. [Though I would encourage you to review any producer code that gets you into this scenario as it sounds quite peculiar to have entity sessions dependent on http sessions yet an inconsistent path through checking which is valid]. Anyway things should work on the consumer because all an InvalidSession means to a consumer is toss the entity session [ID] and recall me passing current/new consumer state [like templates]. Thus if Portlet A from the producer returns invalidCookie while Portlet B returns invalidSession, the consumer will in response to Portlet A fire off a new initCookie and in response to Portlet B resend the old the cookie with new template data/no entity session ID. This later will now throw an InvalidCookie as its not an entity session problem anymore. When the consumer gets the second invalid cookie if the initCookie is still in process the consumer waits for it to complete and then recalls both Portlet A and Portlet B with the new cookie or if already completed [and having called Portlet A again] merely recalls Portlet B with the new cookie. Note: if the consuemr already has the new cookie from Portlet A by the time it is ready to resend in response to Portlet B's invalid session it is fine to send the nwe cookie at this point and avoid the second fault. -Mike- Subbu Allamaraju wrote: > > Good point. It does simplify Alejandro's scenario for the Consumer. > > Subbu > > Rich Thompson said the following on 11/19/2003 11:58 AM: > >> >> I would encourage the Producer in such a scenario to only use the >> cookie and never return a sessionID. This eliminates duplicate >> information that can cause all sorts of issues. >> >> Rich >> >> >> *Alejandro Abdelnur <>* >> Sent by: >> >> 11/19/2003 01:43 PM >> >> >> To >> >> cc >> >> Subject >> Re: [wsrp-interop] on initCookies and sessionID >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> This was exactly the scenario we are facing. The problem is that >> things get weird (out of synch) if the consumer invokes the producer >> in parallel for 2+ portlets and one of the throws a cookie or a >> session fault. >> >> Alejandro >> >> On Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 06:08 AM, Subbu Allamaraju wrote: >> >> > >> > I would like to note that a Producer requring perUser init cookies >> may > choose to use the same cookie for both cases (ie return a >> session > cookie in response to an initCookie call, and return the >> same session > ID in the pbia response). >> >> > In this case, my interpretation is that >> > >> > (a) Producer returns InvalidCookie fault when the cookie from the >> > request (when HTTP binding is used) is no longer valid. >> > >> > (b) Poducer never returns InvalidSession fault (since this has >> the > same affect, atleast for the Producer), and reinvoking >> initCookie() > and resupplying data stored in sessions lets the >> Producer/portlet > recover from session loss. >> > >> > For the consumer, >> > >> > (a) If the Consumer is strict about cookies, it does not send >> expired > cookies to the Producer. So, after the cookie times out, >> it > automatically invokes initCookie(). >> > >> > (b) If the Consumer is not strict, it may send an expired cookie >> to > the Producer. The producer then returns InvalidCookie fault. >> > >> > Subbu >> > >> > >> > Rich Thompson said the following on 11/19/2003 05:52 AM: >> >> My take on the answers: >> >> First, overall comments: Private sessions between the end-user >> and >> particular instances of a portlet are modeled in the >> protocol via >> sessionID. It was also recognized that various >> systems have reasons >> to use a cookie to carry session >> information, though these types of >> sessions are not always >> unique to a portlet instance. As a result, >> these two tend to >> closely parallel each other while never being >> linked. >> >> Q1. Is there any required relationship between the cookies >> returned >> by initCookie and the sessionID returned by the markup >> interface >> calls? >> >> A1. No, though if the CookieProtocol is perUser then they do >> carry >> the same semantics. >> >> Q2. If a call returns an InvalidCookie fault, should the >> consumer >> discard the sessionID? >> >> A2. No, the cookies are independent of the private sessionID and >> are >> not necessarily related to a session at all. >> >> Q3. If a call returns an InvalidSession fault, should the >> consumer >> call initCookie again? >> >> A3. same as A2. >> >> Sorry if the fault descriptions are confusing: >> >> - InvalidSession fault is used only when the private session >> has >> timed out and required data had been cached in the session >> (templates >> or UserContext). If the session did not contain such >> data or it is >> also available via the supplied data on the >> invocation, the Producer >> can simply create a new session and >> include it in the returned data >> structure for future invocations >> from the Consumer. >> >> - InvalidCookie fault is used only when the cookies established >> by >> initCookie become invalid. This signals to the Consumer the >> need to >> invoke initCookie again. Since some Producers will >> establish a >> session related to these cookies, it would be wise >> for the Consumer >> to resend templates and UserContext when >> reinvoking the operation >> that caused the InvalidCookie fault as >> this can avoid the next >> invocation returning an InvalidSession >> fault. >> >> Rich >> >> *Alejandro Abdelnur <>* >> >> Sent by: >> >> 11/18/2003 07:02 PM >> >> >> To >> >> >> >> cc >> >> >> Subject >> >> [wsrp-interop] on initCookies and sessionID >> >> >> One of the engineers in my group (punished >> with implementing WSRP) >> came >> >> to me with the following questions and I could not find an answer >> for >> >> her. I would like to know what is your opinion on this and how >> are you >> >> handling this scenario. >> >> Thanks >> >> Alejandro >> >> * Producer requires initCookie. >> >> * Consumer uses more than one portlet from the producer for >> >> the portal page of a user. >> >> * initCookie has been called upfront. >> >> * performBlockingInteraction and/or getMarkup have returned a >> >> sessionID >> >> Q1. Is there any required relationship between the cookies >> returned by >> >> initCookie and the sessionID returned by the markup interface calls? >> >> Q2. If a call returns an InvalidCookie fault, should the consumer >> >> discard the sessionID? >> >> Q3. If a call returns an InvalidSession fault, should the >> consumer >> call >> >> initCookie again? >> >> If the answer is 'no' to all the questions, then the following >> >> sections >> >> of the spec make things more confusing: >> >> P27/L27 "If the Producer returns an InvalidSession fault message >> after >> >> returning a sessionID, the Consumer MUST NOT resupply that >> sessionID >> on >> >> a subsequent invocation and SHOULD reinvoke the operation that >> caused >> >> the fault message without any sessionID and supply any data that may >> >> have been stored in the session." >> >> P44/L6 "If at any time the Producer throws a fault message >> >> (“InvalidCookie”) indicating the supplied cookies have been >> >> invalidated >> >> at the Producer, then the Consumer MUST again invoke initCookie() >> and >> >> SHOULD reprocess the invocation that caused the fault message to be >> >> thrown and include any data that may have been stored in a session >> >> related to a cookie" >> >> P77/Table,Row=InvalidCookie "InvalidCookie Used only when the >> >> environment at the Producer has timed out AND the Producer needs the >> >> Consumer to invoke initCookie() again and resend data that may have >> >> been stored in sessions related to a cookie." >> >> P77/Table,Row=InvalidSession "Used only when a Producer session has >> >> timed out AND the Producer needs the Consumer to invoke resend data >> >> that may have been cached in the session." >> > >> > >> > >> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the >> roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/ >> > leave_workgroup.php. >> > >> >> >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster >> of the OASIS TC), go to >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/leave_workgroup.php. >> >> >> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-interop/members/leave_workgroup.php.
Next in thread →
Next in month →