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:
Subbu Allamaraju
<>
To
10/24/05 05:24 PM wsrp <>
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:
