W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > August 2003

RE: Issue: Synch/Asynch Web services

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 10:07:48 -0700
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9081287@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Geoff Arnold" <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

I don't see being implementation-neutral as corresponding to not being able to talk about anything that relates to implementation. In cases like sync/async where the common understanding is implementation-related, I think it's very legitimate for WSA to discuss it. 

We might want to distinguish the definition of the concept as it relates to MEPs from the definition that relates to agents behavior. But I don't think it's acceptable to only deal with the former and ignore the latter.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:56 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue: Synch/Asynch Web services
> >> You're talking about the implementation of the agent, not the
> >> properties of the MEP.
> >>
> >
> > True, but it's also true that usually people think of 2 as 
> > asynchronous. That implies that people usually focus on the agent 
> > behavior when talking about sync/async. I agree with Roger 
> that saying 
> > that 2 is synchronous would confuse a lot of people.
> >
> I absolutely agree that "saying 2 is synchronous" would confuse a lot
> of people. Fortunately we shouldn't ever be in the position of
> "saying 2", because we are implementation-neutral. Aren't we?
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 13:07:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:08 UTC