Paul Harrison wrote:
> I am sorry to keep banging on about this, but we cannot brush
> asynchronicity under the carpet as a "2.0" issue when we still
> actually have it present in the 1.0 interface... I think that we need
> to be clear in the specification exactly how we expect this calls to
> behave.
Yep - I agree.
The fact that questions about this are appearing in emails means that
the document isn't clear enough.
I'll write a new bit of description for each - being explicit about the
sequence.
I'll post the new descriptions to the document change wiki page.
Dave Received on 2006-06-16Z16:12:18