- 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>
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 UTC