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

Re: Book chapter on Synch/Asynch

From: Sai Surya Kiran Evani <evani@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 18:08:53 +0200
Message-ID: <3F4A3495.7030009@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>
To: doug@rds.com
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

As you suggest, things would not be so simple as saying 
ordered/unordered. Taking the stand that message exchange behavior is 
the central concept can one view the time a message exchange takes as a 
property of the message exchange behaviour? This way any implementor 
knows what message(s) to expect and process according to the order 
defined and can structure his implementation in the way he thinks best 
fits him from the properties of the message exchange behavior. For 
example, he could poll for the message m1 to come in or process some 
messages which are unordered with respect to m1.


Doug Kaye wrote:

>>Francis asked:
>>    By event driven, I assume you mean an event driven
>>	implementation design pattern?
>Yes, that's what I meant.
>>Kiran asked:
>>	Would calling the message exchanges ordered/unordered instead of
>>	sync/async be more clear?
>Interesting question. I wonder if it's really all that simple. I also wonder
>whether it's sufficient to ignore the realities of time. For example, is
>there any difference between a request/response MEP that spans a few seconds
>and one that spans a few days? One would certainly expect a difference in
>implementation although they're abstractly the same. It depends on what
>you're trying to define and for what purpose.
>(Please forgive me if my responses are particularly naive. I haven't been
>part of this discussion until now, and I understand there's likely been much
>debate on this topic by others more qualified than me.)
>     ...doug
>Doug Kaye, CEO
>RDS Strategies LLC
>doug@rds.com, www.rds.com
>v: 415.453.1400, f: 415.459.0103
Received on Monday, 25 August 2003 12:55:40 UTC

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