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

Re: Synchronous?

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 15:07:20 -0500
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20030318145641.02d79b88@localhost>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

I completely agree with your concern.  I think we have more important 
architectural work to do than to refine this one definition ad infinitum.

To this end, I will have another straw poll out in a few minutes (including 
a "cannot live with" option).

At 10:09 AM 3/18/2003 -0600, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:

>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 
>something?

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 15:07:43 GMT

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