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

Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 20:28:24 -0500
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <000601c2ea92$2cbffe60$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

> > Here are the results of the straw poll on the definition of
> > "synchronous".  Based on these results, I suggest that we:
> >
> > 1. Take definition ugo-2c (see
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Mar/0074.html) as
> > a starting point.
> > 2. See if everyone can agree to the essence of that definition.
> > If so, then:
> >   a. See if anyone wishes to make any minor modifications
> >      (i.e., friendly amendments); and
> >   b. Adopt the result.
> > If not, then:
> >   c. Try to combine two or more of the candidate definitions.
>
> ...
>
> >> Definition ugo-2c
> >> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0386.html
> >> Asynchronous: 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.
> >>
> >> Synchronous: The opposite of asynchronous.
> >
> ...


I have two recommendations:

(1) reverse the nature of the definitions to the positive mode, so
that asychronous is defined in terms of synchronous instead of vice
versa.  This is mainly about refactoring out a logical double
negative.  But something interesting happens with the examples.
Please comment (see below).

(2) be careful about stating the nature of the relation of asynch
to synch.  "Opposite" is ambiguous.  It's really set difference.
If you subtract the synchronous cases from all r/r cases, you are
left with the asynchronous cases.  Isn't that a clearer test?

Thusly:

Synchronous:
A request/response interaction is said to be synchronous when the request
and response are chronologically coupled.  In other words, the client agent
has to "wait" for the response once it issues the initial request.  The
exact
meaning of "wait" depends on the characteristics of the client agent
(including
the transfer protocol it uses).  Examples include waiting for the response
in a different thread, on a different socket or end-point, or by polling the
server.

Asyncronous:
A request/response interaction that does not meet the constraints of a
synchronous interaction (above) is said to be asynchronous.


FWIW,

Walden
Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 20:28:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:16 GMT