[graap-wg] asynchronous binding

[Hiro Kishimoto]

Karl, hope it helps,

> attachment, so I cannot review the specific changes. (Does anyone know
> of a public archive where I can easily retrieve such GRAAP messages
> with attachments?)

http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/graap-wg/threads.html

And his message is;
http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/graap-wg/2004/11/msg00004.html

----
Hiro Kishimoto


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-graap-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-graap-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf Of Karl
> Czajkowski
> Sent: Monday, February 21, 2005 12:30 PM
> To: Takuya Araki (Biglobe)
> Cc: graap-wg at gridforum.org
> Subject: Re: [graap-wg] asynchronous binding
> 
> On Feb 19, Karl Czajkowski loaded a tape reading:
> ...
> >
> > Would a corrected version of the symmetric agreement mechanism satisfy
> > your needs here, or do you also still feel that a two-phase creation
> > mechanism must be available for asymmetric initiators who will not
> > host any WS-Agreement related endpoints?
> >
> >
> > karl
> >
> 
> While waiting for a response, I dug back in my email archive and found
> this comment from Takuya on 1 Dec 2004:
> 
>    I added asynchronous request operations
>    (e.g. createAgreementAsync), polling operations for getting the
>    result (e.g. createAgreementGetResult), and response operations
>    (e.g. createAgreementResult).  Please see the attached document for
>    detail. It also includes some minor comments to the original
>    specification.
> 
> but unfortunately my archive does not retain the Word document
> attachment, so I cannot review the specific changes. (Does anyone know
> of a public archive where I can easily retrieve such GRAAP messages
> with attachments?)
> 
> Just based on the above summary, I would say that I am proposing we
> drop the createAgreementGetResult operation in favor of an equivalent
> binding-level behavior to reliably get (or "re-get" by polling) the
> result of the existing createAgreement call in case it takes too long
> for the baseline bindings.  I am also proposing that we attempt to
> incorporate his notion of a "reverse direction" createAgreementResult
> operation (which I separated as acceptAgreement and rejectAgreement)
> into a repair for the now underspecified and broken symmetric
> agreement pattern.
> 
> Does anybody else have opinions on these issues?  Will there be a
> GRAAP call today (Monday 20 Feb)?
> 
> 
> karl
> 
> --
> Karl Czajkowski
> karlcz at univa.com
>