axis-java-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Srinath Perera <>
Subject Re: [Axis2] Thoughts on making Session Model independent of the InformationModel [Ctx Heirachy]
Date Mon, 30 Jan 2006 13:28:15 GMT
Hi Rajith;

Information model is for manging the information .. (with there
scopes). Session should be part information model.

You need something with global scope to store the map that cantains
session, that should be part of information model


On 1/27/06, Rajith Attapattu <> wrote:
>  Hi Guys,
>  What are your thoughts on making the Session Model independent of the
> Information Model or more specifically the Context Heirachy.
>  1. If we sperate the two areas then both models can evolve independently of
> each other without limiting the growth of each other.
> 2. From a scalability point of view I don't think it's good idea to couple
> the "session" with the context heirachy.
> 3. Currently there is no clearly boundries wrt to where the scope begings or
> ends with ServiceGroupContext and ServiceGroup. I got mixed answers about
> the usage and usefulness of these.
> Let me quote from one of email to the Session mgt proposal thread.
> a) The Session model should be lightweight and clearly defined with proper
> boundries.
> b) It should not be tied to any other model as it might be architecurally
> unstable as there want be a clear demarcation point.
> c) when things start to move across the wire (Session replication) having a
> clean, well defined session model is very very important.
> Right now the most critical shortcomming of Axis2 as I understand is that we
> don't have a clear picture of what a session is wrt to the current Axis2
> architecture.
> I gues Srinath mentioned that same thing to me.
> My suggestion is we should evolve the Session Model independently of
> anything else and inject it to the ServiceAuthor via the message context by
> way of a handler.
> If we do that we want have any limitation or complications of associating it
> with ServiceGroups or anything like that.
> What do u guys think???
> Regards,
> Rajith.

Srinath Perera:

View raw message