[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass requestedLifetime to relevant opreations
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?
Michael Freedman <Michael.Freedman@oracle.com>
12/21/2004 12:55 PM
To WSRP <email@example.com> cc
Subject Re: [wsrp] Issue #32: Pass requestedLifetime to relevant opreations
Rich Thompson wrote:
Issue # 32
Description: Operations expected to return a Lifetime should also take one as input. This would affect register, modifyRegistration, clonePortlet, exportPortlets, copyPortlets.