DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42496>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42496 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-05-24 08:14 ------- (In reply to comment #17) > You mean you'd combine a queue (asynchronous) with request-based user > interaction (synchronous)? I'm not quite sure how this should be implemented > in > a reasonable way - would you add a loop to the usecase which waits for the > queued task to be executed? The "flow" would be: a) user requests ...?lenya.usecase=sitemanagement.create and submits b) doCheckExecutionConditions() checks whether the url is in the cue, if not it locks it in the cue and we hit doExecute() (-> go on with c)). If in the cue addErrorMessage("path-already-exists", params); c) Instead doing setDefaultTargetURL(document.getCanonicalWebappURL()); like right now we can send him to an ajax based cue overview (which gets updated in real time from the cue worker). In combination (or alternatively) we can use a checkbox to request a notification from the worker as soon he has done the document. The cue must be serializable and further keep state of the operation (log error/success). After a cue item is finished we write to the sitetree. To answer: "would you add a loop to the usecase which waits for the queued task to be executed" No, since the execution is to put it in the cue. The only downside is that the user is not be able to see directly the new page. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
