OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

provision message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [provision] Async Proposal...


Jeff,

I don't understand. Do you intend that a requestor must use the 
AsyncRequestType to request asynchonous execution (and that core 
operations would otherwise be synchronous)?

I like the basic idea (if that's what you're getting at), but what about 
the fact that a core operation might be converted to asynchronous 
execution at the provider's initiative (e.g., because workflow requires 
approvals)?

Jeff Bohren wrote:

> I would like to propose a way to make the core and async capability 
> more independent. First I would remove pending from the ResultCode in 
> core and make a StatusCodeType in async.
>
> I would like to propose that all the sync/async semantics should be 
> removed from spml:RequestType and an spmlasync: AsyncRequestType 
> should be created. The spmlasync:AsyncRequestType would be a wrapper 
> that would hold one an spml request. It would be defined as:
>
> <complexType name="AsyncRequestType">
>
> <complexContent>
>
> <extension base="spmlasync:StatusRequestType">
>
> <sequence>
>
> </sequence>
>
> <attribute name="execution" type="spmlasync:ExecutionType" 
> use="optional"/>
>
> </extension>
>
> </complexContent>
>
> </complexType>
>
> <complexType name="AsyncResponseType">
>
> <complexContent>
>
> <extension base="spmlasync:StatusResponseType">
>
> <sequence>
>
> </sequence>
>
> </extension>
>
> </complexContent>
>
> </complexType>
>
> An example would be:
>
> <asyncRequest statusReturns=”results”>
>
> <addRequest>…</addRequest>
>
> </asyncRequest>
>
> If the response would equivalent to a StatusResponseType and would 
> indicate if the submitted request was still pending or completed (i.e. 
> it was executed synchronously).
>
> For requests that worked asynchronously, the response would be:
>
> <asyncResponse status=”pending”>
>
> </asyncResponse >
>
> For requests that worked synchronously, the response would be:
>
> <asyncResponse status=”complete”>
>
> <addResponse>…</addResponse>
>
> </asyncResponse >
>
> By making these changes there would be no async/sync semantics left in 
> the core, and the async capability would be improved (in my opinion).
>
> Jeff Bohren
>
> Product Architect
>
> OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc
>
> **Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management 
> software. Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition 
> today. Go to ****www.opennetwork.com/eval** 
> <http://www.opennetwork.com/eval>**.**
>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]