Title:
Post 1.0 will have a different binding and/or versioning information
(actually that is missing in the protocol, change request to follow).
So it could be handled when consumer and producer implement different
WSRP versions.
Alejandro
Michael Freedman wrote:
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.
