- From: Steven Gollery <sgollery@cadrc.calpoly.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:31:58 -0800
- To: "Aleksander Slominski" <aslom@cs.indiana.edu>
- Cc: <www-ws@w3.org>
Alek, I was trying to avoid polling, but so far that's the only solution that looks workable. Thanks, Steve ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aleksander Slominski" <aslom@cs.indiana.edu> To: "Steven Gollery" <sgollery@cadrc.calpoly.edu> Cc: <www-ws@w3.org> Sent: Friday, January 25, 2002 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Asynchronous callbacks + www-ws > Steven Gollery wrote: > > > I'm probably missing something here: the technique being discussed in the > > message you refer to seems to me to be applicable if one resource (reachable > > through a URL) is subscribing to messages from another resource (also > > reachable through a URL). Is this correct? What if the subscriber is an > > application -- is there some way to make this technique work in that case? > > hi, > > there is actually a solution to this: have event publisher to expose pull interface > (instead of push where subscriber must provide contact endpoint with URL that is > used to push events) and have an application to use an agent library that will be > periodically pulling events and then notify application (using call-backs as was > described before). > > that will allow to run application to get events even if run behind firewall and if > event publisher maintains messages in persistent storage application can retrieve > events even if there were temporary failures (network going down, event publisher > restarted, etc.). > > thanks, > > alek > > ps. we are to soon publish XEVENTS that is implementation of event framework on top > of SOAP that provides pull interfaces, generic and persistent event cannel on top > of SQL database and other goodies ... > > > > >
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 19:32:11 UTC