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

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

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 12:58:52 -0500
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFCE293481.813CFD16-ON85256CEA.00614DC5-85256CEA.0062C13F@us.ibm.com>
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?
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 12:59:18 GMT

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