I would recommend not waiting since the thread is blocked and this isn't good for thread scalability.
I'd suggest: When you call the service, set your transaction status to sent, and populate a 'confim/retry datetime' for now plus x seconds) An escalation in a dedicated pool every minute, or what you consider a suitable period, to look for records where the transaction status is 'sent', and 'confim/retry datetime' > $TIMESTAMP' and should set a retry display field to trip a filter to call their second service to confirm completion, and mark the transaction as 'complete' (and set a archive/delete date for when you want this transaction archived or deleted) If their end is not complete, trigger a resend. Keep a count of retries and stop retrying when x number of retries is met. Also, set the 'confim/retry datetime' that expands with each retry, so you are not flooding them with retries after the target system comes up from e.g. Maintenance. This ideally has all transactions in a seperate ar form. Sent from my BlackBerry device on the Rogers Wireless Network -----Original Message----- From: "Shellman, David" <[email protected]> Sender: "Action Request System discussion list(ARSList)" <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 30 May 2012 16:10:46 To: <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PAUSE or SLEEP a filters in between actions... Joe, I've used a simple counter in a filter guide to cause a pause in a filter operation. Basically the old programming loop counter to slow down a process. The filter guide loops until the counter reaches a set value. Dave On May 30, 2012, at 4:05 PM, "Joe Martin D'Souza" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: ** We are updating an identity management system (OIM) using its SPML based WSDL. During the operations to suspend or resume a user the output status of this operation seems to always be ‘pending’ – which in reality is really an intermediate status before ‘success’ or ‘failure’. The lifespan of this intermediate status is just a brief fraction of a second before the update either succeeds or fails.. From the service consumption point of view, this intermediate status of ‘pending’ is not quite meaningful other than the the fact that the WSDL call was successful. Given a choice I would have rather had the option to wait for those few micro seconds, at what point the status of either ‘success’.. They have a operation in the same web service to query the status. Following the update WSDL with a query WSDL is what I thought would be my answer to getting the new status (although I do not like the option of have another WSDL call when there could have been one)... This query however returns the status of the the user pre update. Filters as we know have no ‘SLEEP’ type action, else I could have used that to pause the filter operations in between the update and query operation. Ideally it would have been perfect if there was an ability to introduce a pause between the two WSDL calls. Is there any ‘creative’ way of inserting a pause in a filter operation that maybe I do not know of? Joe _attend WWRUG12 www.wwrug.com<http://www.wwrug.com> ARSlist: "Where the Answers Are"_ _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are" _______________________________________________________________________________ UNSUBSCRIBE or access ARSlist Archives at www.arslist.org attend wwrug12 www.wwrug12.com ARSList: "Where the Answers Are"
