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

Re: Draft language on MEPs, synchronous, and asynchronous.

From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 01 May 2003 15:09:24 -0400
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <6BD7D87A-7C08-11D7-9E81-000393C53568@sun.com>


On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 02:31  PM, Ugo Corda wrote:
> The only part that concerns me is the statement "Other MEPs allow 
> messages to be sent without precise sequencing, and these are 
> described as "asynchronous"".
> The statement seems to exclude important cases where messages are 
> exchanged using a precise sequencing (e.g. request-response) but in 
> such a way that the receiver does not have to be up at the time the 
> submitter sends the message, or the submitter does not have to wait 
> until the receiver has a response ready and can just collect the 
> response later (cases that are usually classified as asynchronous).

I would suggest that being "up at the time" is the ultimate in 
implementation details. As long as the
binding described in the WSDL can be satisfied and the message 
transmitted across the Internet,
I don't care if it triggers a bell next to the bed of the guy who has 
to boot up the mainframe
and enter JCL by hand to start the application..... ;-)

> In any case, I would rather go ahead with your proposed solution 
> rather than spending other weeks debating the issue. Someway I have 
> the feeling that Web services users will happily do their synchronous 
> and asynchronous exchanges without waiting for our Glossary definition 
> first ...
>

I certainly hope so!
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2003 15:10:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT