Re: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass requestedLifetime to relevant opreations

[Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>]

Ah.  It was the peculiar wording that threw me off.  I raised this for such
use cases as a consumer that has a need for a temporary registration or portlet
-- they can direct the producer [that supports lifetimes] that this request
doesn't need an object that lasts as long as normal.  This is similar to
what I have proposed doing in Import/Export.
     -Mike-

Rich Thompson wrote:

I believe this was one where you were the source :}

The reasoning is that if the Consumer doesn't have a chance to request a particular lifetime, there will be an additional network round trip just to do an initial setup.

This is one where I could easily be convinced either way. Draft 04 has it that the Consumer discovers that the Producer is using scheduled destruction by the appearance of a lifetime in the reply. I suspect Consumers would then add this as a resource to manage relative to the renewal of the lease and therefore not incur an additional roundtrip. The flip side is that if the Producer is using leased resources (Consumer should be able to tell by support for the respective portTypes), why shouldn't the Consumer get a chance to indicate its preference for the initial timeout?


Rich

Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>

12/21/2004 12:55 PM

To	WSRP <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	Re: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass requestedLifetime to relevant opreations

Why?

Rich Thompson wrote:

Issue # 32
Spec section:
SubCommittee: Interfaces
Owner: Andre
Description: Operations expected to return a Lifetime should also take one as input. This would affect register, modifyRegistration, clonePortlet, exportPortlets, copyPortlets.