In fact, you don't even need a no-op, as one can build a server from a wsdl
that does not have a perform(NonBlocking)Interaction. A nice feature of SOAP
is that things will still work if one removes or even adds methods. And I
would say the contract between a producer and a portlet is a private one ...
Not wishing to re-visit the discussion, but, having relaxed the strict
mapping of client request / aggregation to performBlockingAction, and with
perform(NonBlocking)Action's future still uncertain (if we remove it then
perform(Blocking)Action would be more likely to be used multiply and with
returned mode changes etc ignored), I would like to make sure we
re-structure performBlockingInteraction's return values (so that we can
clone-on-write and initiate a portlet session, while returning a
redirectURL). Rich, could you promote my question on this to a change
request, TBD post #142?
Indeed, if we remove performInteraction, I believe we should also include a
boolean in InteractionParameters to help indicate if a re-direct is allowed
by the consumer: boolean consumerUncommitted, default false (but maybe I'm
jumping the [percussion-only] gun).
regards,
Andre
-----Original Message-----
From: Alejandro Abdelnur [mailto:]
Sent: 28 March 2003 01:44
To: ''
Subject: [wsrp] on non-blocking perform interaction
A short follow up on today's discussion on this topic,
Mike is right on that a producer does not have to do anything in this
method, a NOP is enough. However the producer must stop portlets from
creating non-blocking action URLs. And on the consumer side, the
consumer must handle non-blocking perform interaction calls as it does
not know if producers/portlets will create non-blocking action URLs.
Alejandro
