RE: [wsrp-wsia] [I#201] performBlockingInteraction/performInteraction

[Eilon Reshef <eilon.reshef@webcollage.com>]

Title: Message

I second that. PerformBlockingX is a misnomer, since the operation itself doesn't block - rather we expect that the Consumer would block, but that's also not true as it may request portlets from other Producers in parallel. Hence, blocking doesn't seem like the right idiom in our concurrent environment.

 

I think performInteraction and performConcurrentInteraction make much more sense (though I do think that interaction is better than action, as action implies some high-level (framework-oriented) concept which we don't necessarily provide or promote explicitly).

-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar [mailto:Gil.Tayar@webcollage.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2002 4:04 AM
To: wsrp-wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-wsia] [I#201] performBlockingInteraction/performInteraction

Issue: 201
Status: Active
Topic: interface
Class: Minor_Technical
Raised by: Andre Kramer
Title: performBlockingInteraction/performInteraction
Date Added: 18-Dec-2002
Document Section:   v0.85/5.3
Description:
performBlockingInteraction has proved very cumbersome to communicate and we very much want to encourage people to use it over performInteraction. And it still does not mirror JSR168's performAction.
Resolution:
"Review decision of last f2f based on pedantic feedback:- performAction and
performConcurrentAction. Return structures BlockingInteractionResponse, InteractionResponse could become InteractionResponse (blocking inter-action) and ActionResponse (concurrent and blocking actions)."