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: Sat, 03 May 2003 19:01:49 -0400
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <38D45941-7DBB-11D7-95E2-000393C53568@sun.com>

> I for one would be happy to substitute something like:
> MEP's involving that require a response from the responder back to the
> initiator before the initator can initiate another communication that
> responder using the same communication  channel are frequently 
> referred to a
> "synchronous."
> I see that as a friendly amendment that defines "closely coupled in 
> time"
> more rigorously.

I actually see this as an excellent argument *against* trying to get
more rigorous. First, the "same communication channel" is
hopelessly transport-specific. (Try that over MOM or SMTP!)
Second, a MEP that requires me to send you a message on the third
Tuesday of every month is perfectly *synchronous*. "Closeness"
of coupling is a relative thing.

Used informally, the terms can be usefully descriptive. Let's
leave it at that.
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2003 07:29:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:06 UTC