Yeah, this is true. That is a more application-visible change, though.
Johan Stuyts wrote: >> One other thing that I forgot to mention is that I would be in favor >> of adding a new message type for asynchronous calls, even though >> it would changing the wire format and could be kind of a pain to roll >> out. > > This would give the flexility to the client to decide which functions > should be invoked in a one-way manner at runtime, instead of deciding at > function definition time in the IDL, right? Then the async/oneway keyword > can be dropped. > > Would this be acceptable for everyone if the server has no control over > which functions are invoked in a one-way manner? If not, the information > about being one-way or not must still be recorded in the IDL and must be > available to the server so it can enforce the one-way policy. > > -- > Kind regards, > > Johan Stuyts >
