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

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

From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 18:11:32 -0500
To: "Walden Mathews" <waldenm@optonline.net>, "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
The biggest issue I have with Ugo's definition (and all the others) is that
they tie synchrony with blocking versus non-blocking. Synchronous means "at
the same time". Asynchronous means "not at the same time". Whether or not
the sender has to wait idly for a response is a separate issue.

An interaction (one-way, two-way, or multi-way) is synchronous if the sender
and receiver must communicate at the same time (the reciever must be
available to receive the message when the sender sends it). A one-way
message is asynchronous if the sender and receiver do not need to
communicate at the same time (the message may be stored and delivered at a
later time).

  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Walden Mathews
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:25 PM
  To: Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
  Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"

  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?


  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"

    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
                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 18:11:04 UTC

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