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: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:52:49 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624AB8@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Walden Mathews" <waldenm@optonline.net>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

This thread is huge.  It seems to me that it would really be useful if
people posted succinct candidate definitions under a different subject,
like perhaps "Sync Definition".

-----Original Message-----
From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:46 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: The synchronous/asynchronous definition (was RE: Snapshot
of Web Services Glossary on Response types)



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 13:53:45 GMT

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