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: <OF1AD0E785.A39250D0-ON85256CEB.004B69CE-85256CEB.004D649F@us.ibm.com>
Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net> wrote on 03/15/2003 01:24:51 PM:

> 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?

I think that Arkin responded on this point. We call them MEPs or Message
Exchenge Patterns for a reason:-) I am fairly certain that the XMLP group
had oneway message exchanges in mind when it coined the "MEP" phrase since 
I was
there at the time:)

> 
> Can you elaborate on why the definitions should not be complementary?

Because as Roger has so eloquently pointed out, his Aunt Mary is not
synchronous, so she must be asynchronous by our definition? I think we can 
do 
better.

> There a lots of examples that seem to work: typical vs atypical, sexual 
vs
> asexual.  What's wrong/different about this?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Walden Mathews

<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