Re: Issue: Synchronous vs. Asynch.

The problem is, that all the simplified scenarios (e.g. home-banking,
insurance) assume a client / server model, but in case of the insurance or
in my example for critcal processes in indystrial manufacturing this can
also be a server / server communication. In my opinion there is a need for 
syncronous and asynconous communication, because you will get some trouble
if only one (syncronous or asynconous) is supported and your worflow model
demands the other way of communication (asynconous or syncronous).

Karsten

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Karsten Illing
  GiS Gesellschaft fuer integrierte Systemplanung mbH
  Abt. Softwareentwicklung SE/S
  Junkersstrasse 2
  D-69469 Weinheim

  Tel.:[+49] 6201/503-46
  Fax.:[+49] 6201/503-66
  EMail:k.illing@gis.ibfs.de 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------
> Von: marobertson@dstsystems.com
> An: ietf-swap@w3.org
> Betreff: RE: Issue: Synchronous vs. Asynch.
> Datum: Donnerstag, 15. Oktober 1998 15:33
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marc A. Robertson@DST
> 10/15/98 08:33 AM
> 
> I need some help understanding this.  I was under the impression that
SWAP
> was intended to be a workflow server to workflow server protocol, like
> interface 4 in the WfMC reference model.  However, at least some of the
> arguments in favor of synchronous processing( keith swenson's, for
example
> ) imply a workflow client to workflow server protocol, like interface 2
in
> the WfMC reference model.  Which is it?  Or, is it intended to be used in
> both roles?  If it is to be server to server, then I would say that async
> is all that is required, and would be simpler to implement.  If it is to
be
> client to server, then sync is probably required to get the kind of
> interaction desired in that environment
> 
> 
> Marc Robertson
> Staff Consultant
> DST Systems, Inc.
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 15 October 1998 09:50:25 UTC