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] on non-blocking perform interaction

The removal or adding of operations is indeed a nice future but has one
major drawback:
it would break precompiled proxies if you remove operation from a portType.
I think that's why we introduced the different portTypes (interfaces) and
split the functionality into groups: to indicate what functionality is
supported by the producer.
If a producer wants to add/remove operations from portTypes it should then
define its own portType/Binding.
Then it will loose its interoperability as this would be a standard conform

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,

        Richard Jacob
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com

|         |           Andre Kramer     |
|         |           <andre.kramer@eu.|
|         |           citrix.com>      |
|         |                            |
|         |           03/28/2003 10:17 |
|         |           AM               |
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |       To:       "'wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org'" <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>                                                                        |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                                        |
  |       Subject:  RE: [wsrp] on non-blocking perform interaction                                                                                   |

In fact, you don't even need a no-op, as one can build a server from a wsdl
that does not have a perform(NonBlocking)Interaction. A nice feature of
is that things will still work if one removes or even adds methods. And I
would say the contract between a producer and a portlet is a private one

Not wishing to re-visit the discussion, but, having relaxed the strict
mapping of client request / aggregation to performBlockingAction, and with
perform(NonBlocking)Action's future still uncertain (if we remove it then
perform(Blocking)Action would be more likely to be used multiply and with
returned mode changes etc ignored), I would like to make sure we
re-structure performBlockingInteraction's return values (so that we can
clone-on-write and initiate a portlet session, while returning a
redirectURL). Rich, could you promote my question on this to a change
request, TBD post #142?

Indeed, if we remove performInteraction, I believe we should also include a
boolean in InteractionParameters to help indicate if a re-direct is allowed
by the consumer: boolean consumerUncommitted, default false (but maybe I'm
jumping the [percussion-only] gun).


-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:alejandro.abdelnur@sun.com]
Sent: 28 March 2003 01:44
To: 'wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org'
Subject: [wsrp] on non-blocking perform interaction

A short follow up on today's discussion on this topic,

Mike is right on that a producer does not have to do anything in this
method, a NOP is enough. However the producer must stop portlets from
creating non-blocking action URLs. And on the consumer side, the
consumer must handle non-blocking perform interaction calls as it does
not know if producers/portlets will create non-blocking action URLs.


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