+1 to defer it.
thanks,
dims
On 4/18/06, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Glen,
>
> Let's do this but let's not rush it. Even Bill isn't asking for it to be
> in 1.0 .. we can add it after.
>
> I'm hesistatnt because I don't want to add something at this stage
> without impl experience and then have to end up supporting it
> (effectively) for ever.
>
> Also there are subtleties we need to work out: who knows/decides when
> the operation is completed? I *think* there are different answers for
> client and server sides.
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> On Mon, 2006-04-17 at 15:51 -0400, Glen Daniels wrote:
> > > We'd need to create a new interface (or I guess it could be a Handler
> > > but I think that'll be confusing) and a syntax for registering them in a
> > > module.xml probably. Then the engine would notify all such parties once
> > > the MEP has been completed. We may need an additional bit on the
> > > MessageReceiver interface to ask whether the MEP has been completed.
> >
> > I'm not sure we'd even need to go as far as a module.xml syntax. What
> > about simply...
> >
> > class OperationContext {
> > ...
> > public void addCompletionObserver(CompletionObserver obs) {
> > ...
> > }
> > }
> >
> > interface CompletionObserver {
> > void operationComplete(OperationContext op);
> > // This could even be operationSucceeded() and operationFailed()
> > }
> >
> > This seems like it could be very handy, really easy to add, and it would
> > let Handlers programatically do what Bill's looking for (I think?).
> > We've already got OperationContext.setComplete() as the hook for this.
> > Is there a major reason not to put this in now? Seems a very small
> > change which would provide clear value.
> >
> > --Glen
>
>
--
Davanum Srinivas : http://wso2.com/blogs/
