Date:         Wed, 19 Jun 2002 19:05:41 +0100
Reply-To:     "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Robert Sanderson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: is session id included in susequent request?
Comments: To: "Z39.50 Next-Generation Initiative" <[log in to unmask]>
Comments: cc: [log in to unmask]
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I assume that the server is able to set a low session TTL for the first
response and then increase it later if it gets back another request with
that sessionid.  So for example you could have a policy that the first
session will time out in 1 minute but after that the session will be
extended to 10 minutes per request.

Not a lot of resources would be used to keep a session open for a minute
IMO. (Of course if someone wrote a script that constantly requested new
sessions... well, that's an implementation issue... that won't go away
either way :} )

Rob

> but then you get the wasted resource you referred to - they may not be a
> lot of resources but they are still potentially wasted - but thats ok with
> me I suppose
> > > this seems to be a case of Reference Id in reverse and could be handled
> > > the same way - if supplied by the server it must be returned by the
> > > client?
> > No. What I'm hearing is that we don't want to force anyone to support
> > sessions. So if the server supplies one, the client can ignore it. --Ray

--
      ,'/:.          Rob Sanderson ([log in to unmask])
    ,'-/::::.        http://www.o-r-g.org/~azaroth/
  ,'--/::(@)::.      Special Collections and Archives, extension 3142
,'---/::::::::::.    Twin Cathedrals:  telnet: liverpool.o-r-g.org 7777
____/:::::::::::::.              WWW:  http://liverpool.o-r-g.org:8000/
I L L U M I N A T I