I don't like increasing reliance on sessions, but that's a possibility. There is no technical reason it wouldn't work that I can think of.
On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 8:22 AM, Robert Dale <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen stated: > > > You can't control transactions using GLVs/withRemote. One request is > > basically a transaction. The future of bytecode/GLVs has twisted our > > transaction model around a bit. Best practices for transactions are still > > being discussed and considered. > > > Why not allow a sessioned client to send bytecode? > > > Robert Dale >
