Hi Vidula,
We've implemented a similar Active Workspace + Mendix integration, and I'd separate the discussion into session isolation and licensing.
Regarding performance, sharing the same Teamcenter session is generally not a licensing concern, but it can become a performance concern when Active Workspace and the Mendix application are generating significant Teamcenter traffic at the same time. Long-running searches, BOM expansions, or bulk operations initiated from Mendix can impact the responsiveness perceived by users in AW.
For your questions:
1. Will a shared TC session affect AW performance?
Potentially yes. If both applications are effectively operating through the same Teamcenter server context, heavy requests from one side can affect the user experience on the other side.
2. Will only one Teamcenter license be checked out?
In most SSO-based integrations, licensing follows the authenticated user rather than the number of sessions. However, licensing models vary between Teamcenter deployments, so I would still validate this with your Teamcenter administrator or Siemens representative before making architectural decisions based on it.
3. Can Mendix have a separate session?
Yes. The approach we used was to isolate the Mendix Teamcenter session while keeping the same user identity through SSO.
3.1 Separate session for Mendix?
Yes, this is possible and is generally the preferred approach when you want to shield AW from Mendix workload.
3.2 Does it consume a second license?
Typically licensing is tied to the user, not the session itself, but confirm this for your Teamcenter licensing model.
3.3 Separate session but one license?
This is usually achievable when both applications operate under the same authenticated user identity.
Also, if you're evaluating future architecture, I would strongly recommend looking at Mendix 11.12+ "Mendix Inside Teamcenter" instead of relying solely on iframe embedding. Besides providing a smoother user experience, it simplifies context sharing and avoids some of the iframe-related limitations we've had to handle in older implementations.
My recommendation would be:
Hope this helps.