Re: [provision] Keeping results of asychronous operations.

[Gary P Cole <Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM>]

I like that idea, too.  I think Jeff Bohren would be most likely to have 
a contrasting opinion.

Jeff, how could/should/would a provider specify a time limit on async 
results as part of the Async Capability?  Is this a terrible idea?

Darran Rolls wrote:

> I like 1 & 1b with the assumption that the service can "advertise" its 
> retention timings as part of the service definition.
>
> Darran
>
> Gary P Cole wrote:
>
>> A provider will eventually want to forget about a completed 
>> asynchronous operation. I can think of two approaches.  Neither 
>> approach excludes the other.
>> 1) A provider can save the results of asynchronous operations for a 
>> certain amount of time.
>> 2) A provider can send a final, unsolicited response to the requestor.
>>
>> I prefer the first approach.  I like the simplicity and consistency 
>> of a response always being a synchronous reply to a request.  
>> (However, if someone wants to make a case for the second approach, 
>> I'll listen.  Neither approach excludes the other.)
>>
>> Assuming the first approach, we still have options to consider. 1a) A 
>> provider should keep results for each completed asynchronous 
>> operation for a certain amount of time.
>> 1b) A provider should keep results for each completed asynchronous 
>> operation for a certain amount of time OR until a requestor uses the 
>> status operation to obtain the final results of the operation, 
>> whichever comes first.
>>
>> gpc
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
>> of the OASIS TC), go to 
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/provision/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
>>
>>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/provision/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
>
>