I've always assumed that the TTL was an idle time, not an absolute time.
I'm promising that I'll keep your result set for 300 seconds after the last
time you've referenced it.  Reference it again and you'll get another 300
seconds.  Does everyone agree with that?

Ralph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2002 2:06 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: is session id included in susequent request?
>
>
> 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