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


From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:09:21 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817D6B@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
So where are we on getting definitions of synchronous and asynchronous
into the glossary?

I seem to recall the following results to your proposed definition:

1 - A storm of criticism and discussion of nuances.  The most memorable,
to me, being the objection that a definition needs to work for
interactions involving more than two parties.  But also many people
saying, "I don't like blocking, you have to use time", "I don't like
time, you have to use logic", and "I don't like logic, you have to use
"blocking".  Or whatever.

2 - A fairly major new proposed definition from Anne, modified by Mike,
that garnered a certain amount of support from the weary masses,
yearning to breath free of this issue.

3 - Another, somewhat less violent (probably just from weariness), storm
of criticism and nuancing.

4 - A suggestion by Eric that we forget the whole thing in favor of
another approach that has not yet been stormed and nuanced -- opposed by
me on the grounds that the words are used all over the place and it's
now quite apparent that different people are interpreting them to mean
different things.

5 - Exhausted silence.

May I remind you that the clock keeps ticking, we are supposed to have a
product out in some time shorter than the length of time that it takes
for most of us to leave the group and for the world to stop paying any
attention to what we are doing, and there are PLENTY more issues to
address?  Can we somehow PLEASE stop this cycle of failure and agree on
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 11:11:33 UTC

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