W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > October 2004

RE: Stateful Web Services...

From: Mullins, Chalon <Chalon.Mullins@schwab.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:59:10 -0700
Message-ID: <72796EB188CDD411A7BF0002A52CAC161C60A575@n1026smx.nt.schwab.com>
To: "'Walden Mathews'" <waldenm@optonline.net>
Cc: www-ws@w3.org

Doesn't that depend on the application?  If that were an efficient frontier
calculation, why wouldn't that be part of the conversational state?

Chalon Mullins
Technical Director, Infrastructure Strategy and Architecture
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.
101 Montgomery St
San Francisco, CA 94104
phone:  (415) 667-1117

-----Original Message-----
From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net] 
Sent: Friday, October 29, 2004 2:57 PM
To: Mullins, Chalon
Cc: www-ws@w3.org
Subject: Re: Stateful Web Services...


| <CM> Well, I agree about going "stateless," but as the dialog that started
| this point explained, I think we have differences over just what that

Yes, that is usually the problem.  "Stateless" in this context usually
means not storing conversational state on the server.  It does not imply
that you can build server applications that need no storage!  Nor
does it imply anything about what clients can store.

> If I had to transfer all the balances and positions for my customers each
> time so that I could value a portfolio, I would never be able to handle
> hundreds of thousands of concurrent users we do every day.

That's not conversational state you're talking about.

Walden Mathews
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 21:59:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:15 UTC