On 11/27/2013 08:04 PM, Adrian Otto wrote:
On Nov 27, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Murali Allada
mailto:murali.all...@rackspace.com>> wrote:
No, I was Infact thinking about making all responses synchronous to
keep things simple in the beginning. Mostly because I can't think of
any use case that require
On Nov 27, 2013, at 11:46 AM, Murali Allada
mailto:murali.all...@rackspace.com>> wrote:
No, I was Infact thinking about making all responses synchronous to keep things
simple in the beginning. Mostly because I can't think of any use case that
requires asynchronous processing right now. But you'
No, I was Infact thinking about making all responses synchronous to keep things
simple in the beginning. Mostly because I can't think of any use case that
requires asynchronous processing right now. But you're right, we might want to
support async right from the start.
On Nov 27, 2013, at 1:
We should probably include support for asynchronous responses right from the
beginning to handle calls that need a long time to process. Is this in line
with what you were thinking ? I am referring to your comment in the blueprint
"To start things off, we can implement workflow #1 shown above an
