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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrp message

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

Subject: RE: [wsrp] [change request #250] Only 1 performBlockingInteraction()?

Title: Message
Also, 1.0 portlets may be "surprised" if they got multiple performBlockingInteraction, e.g., if such an interaction results in an order being submitted to an ERP system. IMHO, the spec language should be clear on what v1.0 is - the "choreography" may indeed change in future versions, but I think it would be clearer to change the spec then rather than leaving things open before a consensus has been reached on how to address them moving forward.
My two cents,
-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 1:50 AM
To: 'wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: Re: [wsrp] [change request #250] Only 1 performBlockingInteraction()?

Post 1.0 will have a different binding and/or versioning information (actually that is missing in the protocol, change request to follow). So it could be handled when consumer and producer implement different WSRP versions.


Michael Freedman wrote:
I think it does -- as this is a requirement of how consumers interact with producers.  By making this statement we will require that all post 1.0 consumer still adhere to this requirement when communicating with a 1.0 producer as the 1.0 producer my have coded to this restriction.

Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
The current wording does not restrict ourselves for the future, in the future we could say it could be more than one and it would not break backwards compatibility.


Rich Thompson wrote:

Document: Spec
Section: 6.3.2
Page/Line: 44/28
Requested by: Michael Freedman
Old text: The Consumer MUST initiate at most one performBlockingInteraction() for any one client request.
New text: remove this newly added line

Reasoning:  Do we really want to restrict ourselves by this for the future?  As we haven't addressed events yet, should we be cautious to not handtie us if we find a use case/rationale that through handling of events would cause another blocking action to be called?  What is the harm of NOT limiting ourselves.  As long as each adheres to blocking rule it would seem safe.

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