Yes, I think sessions should have idle timeouts.
Making an actively used result set go away is undesirable behavior and falls
under the server's right to do what it needs to do. The TTL is not a
guarantee or even a promise. It's a hint. Your time may vary.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ray Denenberg [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2002 2:18 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: TTL
> How about for the sessionId? Should that be idle time rather
> than ttl too?
> Isn't it possible though that a server might want to expire a
> result set (or
> session), no matter how much activity. By using idle time
> rather than ttl in
> effect you're promising to keep the result set or session
> around forever (as
> long as there's activity). Are you sure you want to do that?
> "LeVan,Ralph" wrote:
> > Yes, we agreed that it was relative time, not absolute.
> But, could we make
> > that idle time? If the result set continues to be active,
> then it shouldn't
> > go away. Yes, I know that I could send a new timeout with
> each reference,
> > but what's the need? I'd rather tell the client once, when
> the result set
> > is created.
> > Ralph