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

> 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.