Re: Cancellation forwarding protocol (was Re: Reliability of RPC services)

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 11:08 +0200, Pierre THIERRY wrote:
> > It is better and faster to just update the payload if what you are
> > trying to accomplish is to block the second and subsequent replies.
> 
> But I'm not sure it is what I want. In fact, now I'm pretty sure it's
> not. To just block subsequent replies is needed upon completion, but for
> cancellation forwarding you need a bit more.

Can you say why you believe this? I think there is a hidden assumption
here that may be mistaken.

>From the perspective of the invoker, there is no difference in behavior
between invoking a Null cap and invoking a cap with a non-matching
payload.


shap