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: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:24:51 -0500
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <000f01c2eb20$2c1bdea0$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>
I don't understand, but I want to.

What would be an example of a oneway message exchange that was
synchronous?  One that was asynchronous?  Actually, if it's oneway, can
you really call it an exchange?

Can you elaborate on why the definitions should not be complementary?
There a lots of examples that seem to work: typical vs atypical, sexual vs
asexual.  What's wrong/different about this?

Thanks,

Walden Mathews
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Christopher B Ferris 
  To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:58 PM
  Subject: 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?
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 13:26:09 GMT

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