Ok...then I think we are in agreement then here ;-)
Bill Dudney wrote: > Hi Jeff, > > That might be the current impl. But this whold thread was to discuss what the > session id should be. > > I'm trying to say that of the 4 options presented at the root of this thread > I'd prefer that the session ID be tied to the particular client which would > lead to the smallest glob of stuff that gets locked. > > if we go with the first option (again from the root of the thread) we would > have a session id per client vm, that is what I don't want. > > -bd- > > On Wednesday, July 12, 2006, at 11:36AM, Jeff Genender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> >> Bill Dudney wrote: >>> If the seesion id is tied to the client vm, i.e. the web vm then there is >>> one session id per web tier vm (which in all likelyhood has many many >>> users). >>> >> Hmmm...I don't think I agree here. I believe the session id is tied to >> the client...period. There is one id per session per client...not web >> tier vm. Maybe you can explain what you are thinking? >> >> Its my understanding the session id is like a web session...that >> particular client gets a unique id that represents only that session for >> that client. >> >> Jeff >> >>
