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: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:19:12 -0500
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <ECEDLFLFGIEENIPIEJJPCEFADMAA.anne@manes.net>


-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Walden Mathews
Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:55 AM
To: Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"
definitions]


>> 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.

<wm>
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.
</wm>

<atm>
If the exchange is synchronous, then you will receive an error indicating
that the receiver is not available to receive the message. (e.g. HTTP 404 -
file not found).
</atm>

<wm>
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.
</wm>

<atm>
I'm strictly talking about the communication process, not application-level
expectations. I'd say that we ought to use a different term to describe
application-level timing expectations.
</atm>

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
here.)

Walden
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2003 11:18:39 GMT

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