A polling protocol should probably provide for 0 .. * messages coming back on each poll (e.g., send request one, poll, no response, send request two, poll again, get both responses). Given this, one might consider the combination of request messages flowing one way and poll responses flowing the other as a sort of virtual channel, split across multiple connections. I wasn't specifically referring to polling, but that is another good exaple of where you can have non request-response sequences that use anonymous endpoints for the response. My example was more along the lines of a persistent TCP connection across which multiple requests and responses were sent without regard for direct pairing/sequencing of the responses. It occurs to me that I'm bringing in yet another notion of asynchronicity here, namely that response messages may not arrive in the same order as their corresponding requests. This is a more general definition, in that it can be realized by the "non-anonymous callback EPR" pattern, by the polling pattern and by something connection-oriented but duplex like an IM protocol. Absolutely. Note that conneciton oriented can be duplex or it can be monoplex (e.g. just one side sending "requests" and the other side sending responses to those requests). ConorReceived on Wednesday, 7 December 2005 01:13:46 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:10 GMT