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

RE: Sync Definition #2 (corrected)

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:46:14 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9081A09@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Well, it's a matter of definitions, and evidently yours does not correspond to mine. I hope people will vote soon so that we can put this issue behind ...

-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:15 PM
To: Ugo Corda; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Sync Definition #2 (corrected)

I think you have just defined a synchronous interaction (request/response, see formal definition) in terms of an asynchronous transport (i.e. one that does send and receive actions independently).

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:36 AM
To: Ugo Corda; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Sync Definition #2 (corrected)

A request/response interaction is said to be asynchronous when the request and response are chronologically decoupled. In other words, the client agent does not have to "wait" for the response once it issues the initial request. The exact meaning of "not having to wait" depends on the characteristics of the client agent (including the transfer protocol it uses). Examples include receiving the response on a different thread, on a different socket, on a different end-point, by polling the server, etc.

The opposite of asynchronous. 
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 15:46:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:03 UTC