Re: [ws-caf] Action item for change timeout proposal

[Mark Little <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

No comments on this (from March 26th)?

Mark.


Mark Little wrote:

> In the last teleconference I got an action item to further develop the 
> proposal for changing the timeout associated with a "running" 
> activity. I hope we're all now clear after the teleconference that the 
> current setTimeout operation on the context service only changes the 
> default timeout value associated with contexts created subsequently 
> without the timeout parameter on begin?
>
> With that in mind, the discussion we had centred on having a proposal 
> for adding another operation to the context service that allows the 
> timeout for an existing activity to be changed, but to say that 
> referencing specifications MAY impose limitations on when it can be 
> used. That proposal is what follows:
>
> That we add an updateTimeout operation to the context service. This 
> operation is contextualised, i.e., a valid context MUST be present 
> with the message. The context service then changes the timeout 
> associated with the context (which may be longer or shorter than the 
> context's current timeout value). Because the timeout value MAY be 
> mutable, we need to make it clear in the text that recipients of a 
> context SHOULD NOT rely upon the value for making local optimisations 
> (such as garbage collection) unless a referencing specification places 
> limitations on how/when updateTimeout can be used (at the limit, even 
> making the timeout value immutable).
>
> Mark.
>
begin:vcard
fn:Mark Little
n:Little;Mark
email;internet:mark.little@arjuna.com
title:Chief Architect
version:2.1
end:vcard