Title: Message
I second that. PerformBlockingX is a misnomer, since the operation itself
doesn't block - rather we expect that the Consumer would block, but that's also
not true as it may request portlets from other Producers in parallel. Hence,
blocking doesn't seem like the right idiom in our concurrent environment.
I think performInteraction and performConcurrentInteraction make much
more sense (though I do think that interaction is better than action, as action
implies some high-level (framework-oriented) concept which we don't necessarily
provide or promote explicitly).
-----Original Message-----
From: Gil Tayar
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, December 18,
2002 4:04 AM
To:
Subject:
[wsrp-wsia] [I#201]
performBlockingInteraction/performInteraction
Issue: 201
Status: Active
Topic:
interface
Class: Minor_Technical
Raised by: Andre Kramer
Title:
performBlockingInteraction/performInteraction
Date Added:
18-Dec-2002
Document Section:
v0.85/5.3
Description:
performBlockingInteraction has proved very
cumbersome to communicate and we very much want to encourage people to use it
over performInteraction. And it still does not mirror JSR168's
performAction.
Resolution:
"Review decision of last f2f based on
pedantic feedback:- performAction and
performConcurrentAction. Return
structures BlockingInteractionResponse, InteractionResponse could become
InteractionResponse (blocking inter-action) and ActionResponse (concurrent and
blocking actions)."
