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

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

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 13:43:16 -0800
To: "Geoff Arnold" <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Geoff Arnold
> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 11:55 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> 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?

I feel there's a bit too much emphasis on two-party interactions. I can see
the general interest if that's all of what people are doing right now. But
if multi-party becomes more interesting down the road (I suspect that when
tools advance it would), would we have to junk everything we're doing right
now and do it all over again? Or can we talk about multi-party with
two-party being a specific and more commonly used case?

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

I think it's a good definition as far as choreography of request/response
patterns goes.

But it still does not answer two important questions (in my opinion):

a) can we say that an operation is synchronous or asynchronous based on it's
interface independent of the protocol we use? can we use that to apply
different semantics (e.g. transactions, queuing, protocol, features)?

b) can we say that something that is not a simple request/response pattern
(WSDL or choreography) is synchronous or asynchronous independent of the
protocol? can we propose a generalized rule that covers more ground?
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 16:43:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:05 UTC