W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Proposed Text on Clocks

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:17:41 -0800
To: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Cc: "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-id: <418FB845.60605@sun.com>


>Chapman: sounds ok to me
>
>>Lafon: ....How about something along the lines of:
>><<
>>CDL does not put any assumption on clock synchronization 
>>between involved parties. In some specific environments, like usual business 
>>activities, it can be assumed that all parties are reasonably well 
>>synchronized on second boundaries, however for all application requiring finer grain time 
>>synchronization or that have same-time requirements amongst all 
>>participants, additionnal support and control may be required 
>>but is out of the scope of the CDL specification.
>>    
>>
>>It seems safer to say that in the general case, we can't 
>>consider clocks to be synchronized so that designers won't reach the case 
>>where a supplier is off by one hour without being warned that using relative time on 
>>participant is more reliable that assuming synchronized clocks 
>>(even on second boundaries).
>>    
>>
mm1: I would prefer we say that any more granularity is left either 
unspecified or undefined. The more specifics we provide the more gap may 
be assumed. Thanks.
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 18:18:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:10 GMT