Title:
I think it does -- as this is a requirement of how consumers interact with
producers. By making this statement we will require that all post 1.0 consumer
still adhere to this requirement when communicating with a 1.0 producer as
the 1.0 producer my have coded to this restriction.
-Mike-
Alejandro Abdelnur wrote:
The current wording does not restrict ourselves for the future, in the
future we could say it could be more than one and it would not break backwards
compatibility.
Alejandro
Rich Thompson wrote:
Document: Spec
Section: 6.3.2
Page/Line: 44/28
Requested by: Michael Freedman
Old text: The Consumer MUST initiate at most one performBlockingInteraction()
for any one client request.
New text: remove this newly added line
Reasoning: Do we really want to restrict ourselves by this for the future?
As we haven't addressed events yet, should we be cautious to not handtie
us if we find a use case/rationale that through handling of events would
cause another blocking action to be called? What is the harm of NOT limiting
ourselves. As long as each adheres to blocking rule it would seem safe.
