[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices
From: |
Chris Smith |
Subject: |
Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Jan 2003 11:58:04 +0000 |
On Wednesday 15 January 2003 12:41, Peter Minten wrote:
> Remember the service level plan? You don't want to send a new session
> reference every time if you can suffice with one session key. That won't be
> much of a problem with DGEE I guess and is much more consistent.
Here are some findings:
.net provides the api's to leave this up to the webservice author. However
they discourage sharing of a session between wbeservices as it makes the
design of one webservice reliant on another. Actually I do this all the time
with webservices in a 'set'. MS's point is that without being properly
managed incompatibilities can arrise.
But the api is there for you to use (Big mistake if MS hadn't!)
Everything in .net is done through a 'proxy' (which is just a class that does
the parameters->SOAP->HTTP->webservice .. and back again .. stuff for you) a
bad coice of name in a web arena if you ask me :o)
Anyway, it's the proxy that handles the session ticket, though I think you
can get at it. One proxy can only have one 'session'.
There are some problems with .net though:
1. session tickets can only be sent and received via COOKIES, and thus you
can only do a stateful design if you're using HTTP.
2. Web services cannot have state - I think they're talking about 'methods'
here, and now I come to put it in an email I'm confusing myself. Will go an
reread that stuff later.
3. If you want to use INPROC state retention (ie not in a db) then you have
to use keep-alive connections - again just HTTP! . You can't use keep-alive
to get round having to use a cookie either, because you may have several
'proxies' each with it's own state at the server.
MS have identified all the problems and suggest a preferred approach, which
is good. Generally they suggest not using state at all. However, a lot of
the problems stem from their base architecture (and I'm not having a dig
here) IIS and all that - they'll find it very difficult to support things
like Jabber.
Chris (your roving .net webservices reporter, on location with a book)
--
Chris Smith
Technical Architect - netFluid Technology Ltd.
"Internet Technologies, Distributed Systems and Tuxedo Consultancy"
E: address@hidden W: http://www.nfluid.co.uk
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, (continued)
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Peter Minten, 2003/01/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, James Michael DuPont, 2003/01/12
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Chris Smith, 2003/01/13
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Gopal V, 2003/01/14
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Chris Smith, 2003/01/14
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Peter Minten, 2003/01/15
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Chris Smith, 2003/01/16
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Gopal V, 2003/01/16
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Chris Smith, 2003/01/16
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Peter Minten, 2003/01/15
- Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices,
Chris Smith <=
Re: [DotGNU]Message passing between webservices, Chris Smith, 2003/01/11