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

RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 14:50:01 -0800
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNGEPFDDAA.arkin@intalio.com>

How about:

An operation is synchronous if both service requester and service provider
engage will alway engage in that operation at the same time.

Or:

An interaction is synchronous if activities demarcated by that interaction
will always be performed at the same time.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:50 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 4:31 PM
> > To: Assaf Arkin; Walden Mathews; Ugo Corda; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >
> >
> > OK, I think I get it.  Thanks.  It seems that the scope (if
> > that is the correct word) that one is considering is really important.
> >
> > It looks to me like a relatively large number of people on
> > this thread are pretty much on the same page.  So can
> > somebody suggest specific, simple entries to put in the
> > Glossary for "synchronous" and "asynchronous" -- and whatever
> > other terms might seem required?  And/or some discussion for
> > the document itself?
>
> This seems close enough for our immediate purposes.  Truly precise
> definitions will not be nailed down EVER, because the meanings will change
> as the world around us changes.

Surely it can't be that complicated (proof aside) ;-) We'ver already decided
on some context for the definition which is half the problem.

An operation implies some activity at the requester side and some activity
at the responsent side, and the operation defines the boundaries of that
activity. All we care about is whether or not these activities have to occur
at the same time, even if they intersect ever so briefly. If they must, it's
synchronous. If it's not synchronous, it's asynchronous ;-)

So how about:

An operation is synchronous if both service requester and service provider
will always engage in that operation at the same time.

Or:

An interaction is synchronous if activities demarcated by that interaction
will always be performed at the same time.

arkin

>
> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci213080,00.html
>
> "2) In program-to-program communication, synchronous
> communication requires
> that each end of an exchange of communication respond in turn without
> initiating a new communication. A typical activity that might use a
> synchronous protocol would be a transmission of files from one point to
> another. As each transmission is received, a response is returned
> indicating
> success or the need to resend. Each successive transmission of
> data requires
> a response to the previous transmission before a new one can be
> initiated.
> Synchronous program communication is contrasted with asynchronous program
> communication. "
>
> " In computer programs, asynchronous operation means that a
> process operates
> independently of other processes, whereas synchronous operation means that
> the process runs only as a result of some other process being completed or
> handing off operation. A typical activity that might use a synchronous
> protocol would be a transmission of files from one point to
> another. As each
> transmission is received, a response is returned indicating success or the
> need to resend. Each successive transmission of data requires a
> response to
> the previous transmission before a new one can be initiated. "
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 17:51:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT