RE: Issue: Synchronous vs. Asynch.

Can it be made an option so that the caller can decide which way to go
for the specific case if the remote system implements both?

Christoph

> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Christoph Bussler
> 
> The Boeing Company                         
> Applied Research and Technology
> P.O. Box 3707, M/S 7L-70
> Phone: [+1] 425-865-4576
> Seattle, WA 98124-2207
> Fax: [+1] 425-865-2964
> U.S.A.                                                   E-Mail:
> christoph.bussler@pss.boeing.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ----------
> From: 	Michael Oliver[SMTP:ollie@opentext.com]
> Reply To: 	ollie@opentext.com
> Sent: 	Wednesday, October 14, 1998 10:35 AM
> To: 	gbolcer@ics.uci.edu; ietf-swap@w3.org
> Subject: 	RE: Issue: Synchronous vs. Asynch.
> 
> I think Asynchronous should be the rule.
> 
> There is nothing that says that an Asynchronous response can't be
> immediate
> and thereby meet the needs of processes that need to be tightly
> coupled but
> as you point out, remote systems may have constraints that prevent
> Synchronous response.
> 
> Michael Oliver
> Senior Technical Research Engineer
> Product Marketing
> Open Text Corporation
> 7391 S. BullRider Ave.
> Tucson, AZ 85747
> (520)574-8272 Voice
> (520)574-8273 Fax
> ollie@opentext.com
> http://www.opentext.com
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:	ietf-swap-request@w3.org [mailto:ietf-swap-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf
> Of Gregory Alan Bolcer
> Sent:	Wednesday, October 14, 1998 9:29 AM
> To:	ietf-swap@w3.org
> Subject:	Issue: Synchronous vs. Asynch.
> 
> This might be an issue to consider.
> Assume that you invoke a remote workflow
> process across the Internet.  You monitor
> the changes wither by subscribing to change
> events or polling using the SWAP monitoring
> methods.  You (the workflow at your end) decide
> that things have changed and you want to
> stop or suspend the remote process (or even
> just change the values in some significant way).  Do
> you invoke the appropriate suspend commands
> and wait to receive the termination values or
> do you send the termination commands and subscribe for
> the terminations values?   The question is,
> should this take place synchronously or asynchronously?
> I would argue for the latter as it implies less intrusive control
> on a foreign system.   As a long running process
> will definitely have to do some cleanup that may well go beyond
> reasonable http and rpc timeouts.
> 
> The analogy is a regular computer operating system.
> When you are the user kill a process, from your standpoint
> it looks like you are actually doing the termination,
> but what is happening is you are 'requesting' that the
> operating system terminte the process, which it
> evaluates, schedules, completes, and cleans up.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Greg
>

Received on Wednesday, 14 October 1998 15:00:55 UTC