W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

RE: New Scenario

From: Octav Chipara <ochipara@cse.unl.edu>
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000 14:08:18 -0600
To: <dick@8760.com>, "XP" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BJECKEPOPABPPFLJAAOEAEMCCAAA.ochipara@cse.unl.edu>

Yep, I think that DS16 covers what I was talking about. The problem that I
was thinking was different but I was talking about asynchronous
communication ...  Good.

- Octav

-----Original Message-----
From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
Sent: Monday, December 25, 2000 8:43 AM
To: ochipara@cse.unl.edu; XP
Subject: RE: New Scenario

Octav,

I believe the scenario you describe may be represented by either of the
following use cases:

[DS16] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0229.html
[DS5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0221.html


Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org [mailto:xml-dist-app-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Octav Chipara
> Sent: Sunday, December 24, 2000 7:27 PM
> To: XP
> Subject: New Scenario
>
>
> Has anyone thought about a scenario in which the server is
> supposed to do a
> lot of work to complete a request? In this case a simple request/reply
> pattern would not work because you would keep the port occupied without
> having it to be. Is there any suggested communication pattern for such a
> case?
>
>
> - Octav
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 December 2000 15:08:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT