- From: Mullins, Chalon <Chalon.Mullins@schwab.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:59:10 -0700
- 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. SF211MN-08-472 101 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... Chalon, | <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 means. 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 the > hundreds of thousands of concurrent users we do every day. That's not conversational state you're talking about. Regards, Walden Mathews
Received on Friday, 29 October 2004 21:59:53 UTC