RE: [wsrp] Issue #42: Metadata needed concerning support for leasing?

As discussed on the call, the producer
declaring the leasing port types (one for registrations and another for leasing
portlet handles) can be taken as a requirement for consumers using that
producer to support leasing. Minimally, they could request “infinite”
leases but must always be prepared to accept leases as returned by the producer
or give up. A special service contract can still be negotiated on registration,
of course, but that is out of band (we have no special registration property
for facilitating this either) so including settable metadata seems to only
address half of the negotiation. I would prefer to require consumers to support
leasing when producers expose the leasing port type(s).

 

Note that a producer that does fully
support both leasing and a “no leasing required” policy could just
publish a second service wsdl which does not include the optional leasing ports.
I acknowledge that would be extra work (and another endpoint, say) but I would
not wish to complicate our interop metadata or encourage consumers implementations
to skip leasing and therefore ignore producers that require it. 

 

By the way, I think a common policy will
be to have extremely long leases (future termination times and refresh durations)
so a consumer may never have to refresh a lease explicitly but still allow detecting
failed consumers or missed/unprocessed protocol replies. 

 

Regards,

Andre

 

From: Rich Thompson
[mailto:] 

Sent: 07 March 2005 16:39

To: 

Subject: [wsrp] Issue #42:
Metadata needed concerning support for leasing?

 

Issue
# 42

Spec section:

SubCommittee: Interfaces

Owner: Richard Jacob

Description: Should the Consumer metadata declare
whether or not it supports leasing? Should the Producer metadata declare
whether leasing support is required?