W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > ietf-swap@w3.org > October 1998

RE: Issue: Synchronous vs. Asynch.

From: <kswenson@ms2.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:29:12 -0700
Message-ID: <C70BCBAA61B5D111BFDB00A0C9AB25620B7A2E@ms2.com>
To: marobertson@dstsystems.com, ietf-swap@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marobertson@dstsystems.com [mailto:marobertson@dstsystems.com]
> 
> I need some help understanding this.  I was under the 
> impression that SWAP
> was intended to be a workflow server to workflow server protocol, like
> interface 4 in the WfMC reference model.  However, at least 
> some of the
> arguments in favor of synchronous processing( keith 
> swenson's, for example) imply a workflow client to workflow 
> server protocol, like interface 2 in
> the WfMC reference model.  Which is it?  Or, is it intended 
> to be used in
> both roles?  If it is to be server to server, then I would 
> say that async
> is all that is required, and would be simpler to implement.  
> If it is to be
> client to server, then sync is probably required to get the kind of
> interaction desired in that environment

Sorry, let me clarify.  You are correct in that SWAP is intended 
as a 'service' to 'service' protocol.  By 'service' here we mean
something that answers a request to a Web URL.  But in an
given specific interaction, one of those workflow servers is the 
"client" sending a request, and the other is the "server" which 
handles the request and sends a response.  

Now, in fact, similar to to the OMG workflow RFP, SWAP supports
some aspects of IF2, IF3, and IF4, but the intent is for a 
persistent service to talk to another persistent service.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith D. Swenson, kswenson@ms2.com, MS2 Inc.
2440 W. El Camino Real, Mountain View, CA, 94040
tel: +1 650 623-2329,  fax: +1 650 967-7394
Received on Thursday, 15 October 1998 13:27:56 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 22 March 2009 02:44:17 GMT