[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [provision] Asynchronous requests.
Gary, As long as we determine how the client communicates its ability to handle such a conversion by the PSP, I am ok. I feel uncomfortable with having the PSP change the execution type when it was explicitly specified by the RA as sync. The PSP can fail the request in such a case, but should not change the mode as it has no clue whether the RA can handle this. Doron -----Original Message----- From: Gary P Cole [mailto:Gary.P.Cole@Sun.COM] Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 5:48 PM To: Cohen, Doron Cc: Jeff Larson; PSTC Subject: Re: [provision] Asynchronous requests. Doron, There is (currently) no way for an RA to *explicitly allow* asynchronous execution in a request. An RA must do one of the following: - explicitly request asynchronous execution - explicitly request synchronous execution - omit the execution attribute (which could be taken as implicitly allowing either type of execution). Does this change your opinion (that it is okay for a provider to convert a request to asynchronous execution)? gpc Cohen, Doron wrote: >Jeff, > >I understand the scenario, but I believe in many cases the client would >anticipate the workflow scenario and use async the first place. >In any case, I do not object to allowing the PSP to convert the request as >long as the RA explicitly allows that in the request. If it doesn't the PSP >can either accept it and allow the client to wait indefinitely OR reject the >request with a fail status. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]