RE: [wsrp] Issue #42: Metadata needed concerning support for leasing?

As discussed on the call, the producer declaring the leasing port types (one for registrations and another for leasing portlet handles) can be taken as a requirement for consumers using that producer to support leasing. Minimally, they could request “infinite” leases but must always be prepared to accept leases as returned by the producer or give up. A special service contract can still be negotiated on registration, of course, but that is out of band (we have no special registration property for facilitating this either) so including settable metadata seems to only address half of the negotiation. I would prefer to require consumers to support leasing when producers expose the leasing port type(s).

Note that a producer that does fully support both leasing and a “no leasing required” policy could just publish a second service wsdl which does not include the optional leasing ports. I acknowledge that would be extra work (and another endpoint, say) but I would not wish to complicate our interop metadata or encourage consumers implementations to skip leasing and therefore ignore producers that require it.

By the way, I think a common policy will be to have extremely long leases (future termination times and refresh durations) so a consumer may never have to refresh a lease explicitly but still allow detecting failed consumers or missed/unprocessed protocol replies.

Regards,

Andre

From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 07 March 2005 16:39
To: wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp] Issue #42: Metadata needed concerning support for leasing?

Issue # 42
Spec section:
SubCommittee: Interfaces
Owner: Richard Jacob
Description: Should the Consumer metadata declare whether or not it supports leasing? Should the Producer metadata declare whether leasing support is required?

wsrp message