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

RE: Issue: Synch/Asynch Web services

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:44:33 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817F49@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Geoff Arnold" <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

It is really important that WSA nails down definitions for
    "synchronous" and "asynchronous", because this will
    allow me to have confidence that Web services will support, in an
interoperable way, synchronous and asynchronous implementations
(particulartly the latter, since this is where the problems are most
likely to arise, is the most different from the historical starting
point of Web services, and is the most typical of core business
processes) in applying Web services to
    business applications. If they don't do so, I won't be able to use
them at all for core business processes -
    or I'll have to trust to luck that they will work or be
intereperable instead.  If I cared a lot about late binding, I would
also not be able to implement late bound business processes that are
sensitive to whether the WS will support synchronous or asynchronous
operations.   Nailing down the definitions will not, in itself, enable
these desirable outcomes, but is a necessary pre-condition for
addressing the real issues, which I tried to sketch in section 4 of
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Aug/0001.html.

To respond to another implied question, it really doesn't matter if an
approach is formally verifiable if it is incorrect.  It looks to me like
this one is incorrect -- it says that an MEP that is agreed by
(virtually) all to be asynchronous is synchronous.  Since the MEP in
question is very commonly used in practical situations, I'd consider
that to be a considerable drawback. 


-----Original Message-----
From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:52 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Issue: Synch/Asynch Web services


> Also -- I do not agree that sync/async is only an implementation 
> issue. I think it is pretty clear that certain Web services, by their 
> nature, can be used sync but not async -- or async but not sync -- or 
> in both ways.  That means to me that it is not an implementation 
> issue.

Can we replace the notion of being "used" sync or async with something a
little more precise? What would be observably different? And "in both
ways"...?!

> It also happens to be an issue that is really important to people who 
> are interested in business applications of Web services.  These 
> persistent attempts to declare the concepts either to be meaningless 
> or out of scope are very discouraging.
>
Hmmmmm........ I'm surprised that you would characterize a formally
verifiable approach grounded in message exchange patterns as either
meaningless or out of scope. But you just said something much more
interesting to me: "It also happens to be an issue that is really
important to people who are interested in business applications of Web
services." Presumably this means that you (or others) are able to
complete the following paragraph:
    It is really important that WSA nails down definitions for
    "synchronous" and "asynchronous", because this will
    allow me to ______________ in applying Web services to
    business applications. If they don't do so, I won't be able to -
    or I'll have to ___________ instead.

Curious,

Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 15:34:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:22 GMT