- From: Gregory Alan Bolcer <gbolcer@gambetta.ics.uci.edu>
- Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1998 09:29:23 -0700
- To: ietf-swap@w3.org
This might be an issue to consider. Assume that you invoke a remote workflow process across the Internet. You monitor the changes wither by subscribing to change events or polling using the SWAP monitoring methods. You (the workflow at your end) decide that things have changed and you want to stop or suspend the remote process (or even just change the values in some significant way). Do you invoke the appropriate suspend commands and wait to receive the termination values or do you send the termination commands and subscribe for the terminations values? The question is, should this take place synchronously or asynchronously? I would argue for the latter as it implies less intrusive control on a foreign system. As a long running process will definitely have to do some cleanup that may well go beyond reasonable http and rpc timeouts. The analogy is a regular computer operating system. When you are the user kill a process, from your standpoint it looks like you are actually doing the termination, but what is happening is you are 'requesting' that the operating system terminte the process, which it evaluates, schedules, completes, and cleans up. Any comments? Greg
Received on Wednesday, 14 October 1998 13:19:07 UTC