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

Re: The synchronous/asynchronous definition (was RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary on Response types)

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:45:47 -0500
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <000a01c2dcfe$1cb4a580$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

Roger,

I agree with all you have said below, and have nothing additional
to propose.  My C and D's have been on the table since early
yesterday, but I'd hoped for more feedback on the C, in case more
D's need to be formulated.  Thanks,

Walden

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>;
<www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: The synchronous/asynchronous definition (was RE: Snapshot of
Web Services Glossary on Response types)


>
> I can't answer the question of whether it is worth this much effort.
> Here is what I think the situation is:
>
> 1 - There are definitions of synchronous and asynchonous currently in
> the Glossary.  They are not good and definitely need to be replaced by
> something -- or eliminated entirely, I suppose.  I think (hope)
> everybody agrees with this.
>
> 2 - The terms are certainly used in the Usage Scenarios document, and I
> think that they are probably going to be in the Architecture document
> itself, right?
>
> 3 - This thread makes it VERY clear (to me at least) that not everybody
> has the same thing in mind when they use the terms.  It seems to me that
> this is a good reason to say that the terms really need to be in the
> Glossary -- and then some discipline needs to be exerted to remind
> people to use the terms in whatever that sense might be.
>
> 4 - We have had at least one other lengthy thread, or series of threads,
> on this subject a number of months ago.  These threads died away and
> much of the material in the current threads is similar (although this
> one is more detailed).  One option would be to let this thread die out
> without resolution.  In that case, it seems likely that there will be
> yet another similar thread several months from now that essentially
> treads the same ground YET AGAIN.
>
> My personal opinions:
>
> A - People with different backgrounds approach the terms in different
> ways.  That is, there is a synchronous(J, J=1,..,N) where N seems to me
> to be about three or four.
>
> B - For each J the questions are not particularly unanswerable and there
> may be some nits but they are not big deals.
>
> C - I'd like to see us, as quickly as possible, choose one value of J,
> put a definition on paper, and get on with it.
>
> D - If C is not possible, I'd like to see us choose more than one value
> of J, associate adverbs modifying the terms with those values of J, put
> the definitions on paper, require that the terms only be used with a
> modifier in the documents -- and get on with it.
>
> E - It seems to me that there has been ENOUGH discussion.  It would seem
> to me useful for the participants in the discussion to field their
> candidates for C and D -- and to GET ON WITH IT.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:12 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: The synchronous/asynchronous definition (was RE: Snapshot of
> Web Services Glossary on Response types)
>
>
>
> Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like either a nit that we're
> spending too much time on or an unanswerable question that better minds
> than ours have failed to resolve over the last 20 years or so.
>
> It's important to maintain focus on the cases that we can actually add
> value to, and ignore the ones that will get better by themselves or will
> die anyway. (Beating the "triage" metaphor into the ground). I'm
> *personally* (not wearing chair hat) not convinced that this is a good
> use of our time. Could someone one the WG explain why we consider the
> definition of synch/asynch worth this much effort on the mailing list?
> Are we in striking distance of an acceptable definition?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 13:45:59 GMT

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