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: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:05:32 -0500
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF84CCBBD5.3726F67B-ON85256CEB.004B2976-85256CEB.004D6480@us.ibm.com>
"Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net> wrote on 03/15/2003 06:11:32 PM:

> 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). 
> 
> Anne

Precisely. 

<snip/>
Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2003 09:05:45 GMT

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