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: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:55:21 -0500
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <002d01c2ebd4$7386bf80$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>
>> 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 


But this is still confusing if you use the word "asynchronous" to
describe the sender or the message that is sent.  If I'm unaware of
your state as a receiver and I send you a message, am I sending
synchronously or asynchronously?  This usage seems wrong, and I think
the definition adopted should rule it out.

That means "synchronous" as applied to event sets means constraints
on the timing of the events.  And it means "synchronous" as applied
to an application behavior means an intent or an expectation to
accomplish something within a deadline, generally.

I realize these interpretations don't directly say what you want
them to.  What I'm wondering is whether they are correct enough
to be applied to specific cases through example.  (I'm really trying
to find some commond ground among the theorists and pragmatists

Received on Sunday, 16 March 2003 10:55:28 UTC

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