> >Will sessionids have a TTL as well? In which case a resultset with a TTL
> >longer than the session's TTL is just incorrect.
> >If they don't have a TTL, then are they just silently expired with no
> >warning? In which case I would suggest that sessions shouldn't be expired
> >while they have resultsets that still have time left to live as this is
> >contrary to the only information presented to the client.

> I would say, that it is preferred that resultsets time out later than
> sessions but when it is the other way around, the client could save the
> original CQL to re-execute the query.

The seems very strange to me.  Surely the implication of having a result
set last longer than the session is that result sets can be accessed out
side of a session?

But if you're going to have sessions and I assume limit access to
resultsets to only those created during that session, what is the point of
having them last longer than the session?

This isn't rhetorical, maybe there is a reason, but I can't think of one
:)

Rob

--
      ,'/:.          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