wsrp message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass requestedLifetime to relevant opreations
- From: Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>
- To: WSRP <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:09:22 -0500
I believe this was one where you were
the source :}
The reasoning is that if the Consumer
doesn't have a chance to request a particular lifetime, there will be an
additional network round trip just to do an initial setup.
This is one where I could easily be
convinced either way. Draft 04 has it that the Consumer discovers that
the Producer is using scheduled destruction by the appearance of a lifetime
in the reply. I suspect Consumers would then add this as a resource to
manage relative to the renewal of the lease and therefore not incur an
additional roundtrip. The flip side is that if the Producer is using leased
resources (Consumer should be able to tell by support for the respective
portTypes), why shouldn't the Consumer get a chance to indicate its preference
for the initial timeout?
Rich
Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>
12/21/2004 12:55 PM
|
To
| WSRP <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| Re: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass
requestedLifetime to relevant opreations |
|
Why?
Rich Thompson wrote:
Issue # 32
Spec section:
SubCommittee: Interfaces
Owner: Andre
Description: Operations
expected to return a Lifetime should also take one as input. This would
affect register, modifyRegistration, clonePortlet, exportPortlets, copyPortlets.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]