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

I'm certainly not at all comfortable with Ugo's definition because it only 
addresses request/response
and does not at all scale to either multi-party exchanges (as Geoff points 
out) or to
a simple oneway message exchange, which most certainly CAN be 
asynchronous. In fact,
the definition we seem to have chosen cannot be translated into either of 
these forms of MEP.

Secondly, I think it would be a mistake to simply take one term and make 
it the opposite or
logical not of the other.

My $0.02 USD.

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624



Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM> 
Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
03/15/2003 02:55 AM

To
www-ws-arch@w3.org
cc

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







Two quick questions:

(1) Do people feel that we're converging on language which
addresses both two-party and multi-party interactions?
If not, does that matter?

(2) Are we confident that our definition is robust
enough to be adopted by the choreography folks?