Hi all, I've added Tim's comment to the Async RFE: http://restlet.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143
Best regards, Jerome > -----Message d'origine----- > De : Rob Heittman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Envoyé : vendredi 25 janvier 2008 05:32 > À : discuss@restlet.tigris.org > Objet : Re: Restlets and Asynchronous Request Processing > > > It's probably best in that case for handle to return a > Future-like object that lets you wait for completion or > cancel. Then Restlets that implement asynchronous handle > could use a common default implementation of synchronous > handle like this ... > > > > That's the general idea I had in mind ... glad you have the > same picture. I don't want to lose the simple synchronous > version either. > > > > There need to be thread-safe versions of Request and > Response for any of this to work. > > > I believe there need to be thread-safe versions of Request > and Response (full stop). Given an architecture like Restlet > that allows considerable creativity in the client and server > connectors you plug in, I'd like to have some guarantees > about the concurency behavior of high level API objects, > regardless of how interesting the implementation of the > underlying call is. > > > > I should probably put these and future comments in the > issue tracker, but for which issue, asynchronous > <http://restlet.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=143> or > GWT <http://restlet.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=127> ? > > > The async RFE would be the best choice, IMO. GWT is a > special case that effectively requires callbacks for > implementation reasons, which turns out to make a handy > testbed for some of these concepts, but the overall async > thinking should be driven by the async RFE. > > - R > > >
