[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfacesdocument
Eilon - my comments are embedded in [CL] tags Best regards Carsten Leue ------- Dr. Carsten Leue Dept.8288, IBM Laboratory Böblingen , Germany Tel.: +49-7031-16-4603, Fax: +49-7031-16-4401 |---------+-----------------------------> | | Eilon Reshef | | | <eilon.reshef@webc| | | ollage.com> | | | | | | 06/10/2002 08:31 | | | PM | | | Please respond to | | | Eilon Reshef | | | | |---------+-----------------------------> >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org, wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org | | cc: | | Subject: RE: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfaces document | | | | | >---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Rich, Kudos on the last version of the spec, it reads great and much clearer and cleaner than previous versions. I would like to add my own two questions based on an initial reading of the document. The semantics of "session" Does a session span all the different portlets/templates/instances provided by a single service? If so, that means that extra care is needed in the case where Producers don't want to share sessions. The most natural example that comes to mind is a simple SOAP gateway that relays requests to multiple even-more-remote Producers. In this case, the gateway has to implement the semantics of session aggregation or do some other manipulation of the message body. [CL] In the spec we tried to avoid this by allowing the consumer to explicitly create sessions that can then be shared only amongst the portlets that need session sharing. You are right that in the case that there was only one session per producer that producer would have to do some namespacing to shield the portlets from each other. But I am afraid that there is no common agreement on this topic in the WSRP group at the moment, we will discuss it in today's call. [CL] Multiple parameters using arrays I concur with a previous comment that it seems unnatural to duplicate every parameter of every call just for the sake of a single network communication. Beyond being unnatural, this also requires the Consumer do to work, and apropos an earlier discussion, would practically preclude using SOAP exceptions (if the Consumer gets an exception, this essentially means that one of of the many services may have failed, and this isn't the regular semantics of exceptions). Unless I am missing something, this networking issue can be solved by the layer that created it (the transport layer) using for example HTTP 1.1. Although existing SOAP frameworks probably don't have built-in support for this, since we are talking about a single generic proxy for all WSRP services, I see no reason why this should be particularly challenging to accomplish. This would also allow multiplexing of different calls (to operations with different signature) without requiring to open a new connection. [CL] I think that introducing arrays as arguments to the various methods provides a simple means for saving roundtrips without much complexity. The consumer is not requested to do so, in the SOAP message the difference between a single parameter an a parameter list with only one parameter would not even be visible. If we could have batch processing only when "tweaking" the transport I suppose that this will practicall never be exploited. In addition how could a generic prodcuer detect this fact and use e.g. parallel rendering to minimize response time. [CL] In general (regarding both of those comments), let's not forget that portal interoperability is an important objective of this committee - but it's just one. The other, which is as important, is to allow ISVs and end customers to create portlets that can work across portals. We have to ensure that the specification does not practically preclude this second objective by optimizing the interface for the first. [CL] I totally agree with both of your comments but do not see why this conflicts with the interface proposition. [CL] Eilon -----Original Message----- From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 3:38 PM To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org; wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsia] [wsrp] [wsrp-wsia joint interfaces] Merged interfaces document Here is a draft of the merged interfaces document that Carsten and I have been working on this week. The largest conceptual change from the previous 0.44 Joint Spec Draft is the appearance of arrays in most of the operations. This allows Consumers on the scale of portals to efficiently interact with Producer services. (See attached file: WSIA - WSRP Interface Specification.doc)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC