[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp] on non-blocking perform interaction
The removal or adding of operations is indeed a nice future but has one major drawback: it would break precompiled proxies if you remove operation from a portType. I think that's why we introduced the different portTypes (interfaces) and split the functionality into groups: to indicate what functionality is supported by the producer. If a producer wants to add/remove operations from portTypes it should then define its own portType/Binding. Then it will loose its interoperability as this would be a standard conform portType/Binding. Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards, Richard Jacob ______________________________________________________ IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469 - Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888 Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com |---------+----------------------------> | | Andre Kramer | | | <andre.kramer@eu.| | | citrix.com> | | | | | | 03/28/2003 10:17 | | | AM | |---------+----------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "'wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org'" <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org> | | cc: | | Subject: RE: [wsrp] on non-blocking perform interaction | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| In fact, you don't even need a no-op, as one can build a server from a wsdl that does not have a perform(NonBlocking)Interaction. A nice feature of SOAP is that things will still work if one removes or even adds methods. And I would say the contract between a producer and a portlet is a private one ... Not wishing to re-visit the discussion, but, having relaxed the strict mapping of client request / aggregation to performBlockingAction, and with perform(NonBlocking)Action's future still uncertain (if we remove it then perform(Blocking)Action would be more likely to be used multiply and with returned mode changes etc ignored), I would like to make sure we re-structure performBlockingInteraction's return values (so that we can clone-on-write and initiate a portlet session, while returning a redirectURL). Rich, could you promote my question on this to a change request, TBD post #142? Indeed, if we remove performInteraction, I believe we should also include a boolean in InteractionParameters to help indicate if a re-direct is allowed by the consumer: boolean consumerUncommitted, default false (but maybe I'm jumping the [percussion-only] gun). regards, Andre -----Original Message----- From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com] Sent: 28 March 2003 01:44 To: 'wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org' Subject: [wsrp] on non-blocking perform interaction A short follow up on today's discussion on this topic, Mike is right on that a producer does not have to do anything in this method, a NOP is enough. However the producer must stop portlets from creating non-blocking action URLs. And on the consumer side, the consumer must handle non-blocking perform interaction calls as it does not know if producers/portlets will create non-blocking action URLs. Alejandro
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]