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

RE: Book chapter on Synch/Asynch

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:17:22 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817F89@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Sai Surya Kiran Evani" <evani@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, doug@rds.com
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

I would personally appreciate this.  I think that it would be a VERY bad
idea to call "synchronous" the case where A sends a message to B, A goes
about other business and checks periodically to see if B has returned an
answer -- since this is the case that virtually all of the references
you will get if you do a Google search on asynchronous Web services
(outside our mailing list) will refer to.  I think that the messages are
clearly ordered, but the world calls this asynchronous. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sai Surya Kiran Evani [mailto:evani@informatik.uni-freiburg.de] 
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:41 AM
To: doug@rds.com
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Book chapter on Synch/Asynch



Hi,

Would calling the message exchanges ordered/unordered instead of 
sync/async be more clear?

Thanks,
Kiran.

Doug Kaye wrote:

>Hello, Hao & Roger.
>
>I'm the author of the chapter/book in question. To the extent that I've

>read and understand your arguments (I read the two messages you 
>referenced below), I agree with the definition. OTOH, I didn't find 
>another explanation of the "conundrum" so there may be issues I'm not 
>considering.
>
>To my mind the distinction between synch and asynch comes down to the 
>opportunities for implementation. Specifically, a synch implementation 
>can (but not must) be non-event driven. It can be designed using a 
>single-task send-wait-receive model. Not that this is recommended, but 
>it's at least possible. Asynchronous processing implies an event-driven

>model in which the next-to-arrive message is not deterministic. This 
>assumes no errors *at the layer under consideration*. As was pointed 
>out, asynch or synch at one level may be based on a different MEP at 
>the lower layer(s) and vice versa.
>
>     ...doug
>
>Doug Kaye, CEO
>RDS Strategies LLC
>doug@rds.com, www.rds.com
>v: 415.453.1400, f: 415.459.0103
>
>Message-ID: 
><686B9E7C8AA57A45AE8DDCC5A81596AB046AE756@sydthqems01.int.tisa.com.au>
>From: "He, Hao" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
>To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>,
>www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:32:31 +1000
>Subject: RE: Book chapter on Synch/Asynch
>
>
>Well, it appears to me that the author agrees with Geoff
>(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Aug/0060.html) and

>me (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Aug/0054.html).

>That is:"if ordering is important, it is sync.  Otherwise, it is 
>async.".
>
>Hao
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 5:57 AM
>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: Book chapter on Synch/Asynch
>
>
>
>Those interested in the definition and architectural implications of 
>"synchronous" and "asynchronous" web services might wish to look at 
>http://www.rds.com/download-request.php?file=books/looselyCoupled/Chapt
>er-09
>-Async.pdf
>
>This is a free chapter of LOOSELY COUPLED by Doug Kaye 
>http://www.rds.com/books/looselyCoupled/index.html
>
Received on Monday, 25 August 2003 12:36:05 GMT

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