- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:17:41 -0800
- To: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
- Cc: "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
>Chapman: sounds ok to me > >>Lafon: ....How about something along the lines of: >><< >>CDL does not put any assumption on clock synchronization >>between involved parties. In some specific environments, like usual business >>activities, it can be assumed that all parties are reasonably well >>synchronized on second boundaries, however for all application requiring finer grain time >>synchronization or that have same-time requirements amongst all >>participants, additionnal support and control may be required >>but is out of the scope of the CDL specification. >> >> >>It seems safer to say that in the general case, we can't >>consider clocks to be synchronized so that designers won't reach the case >>where a supplier is off by one hour without being warned that using relative time on >>participant is more reliable that assuming synchronized clocks >>(even on second boundaries). >> >> mm1: I would prefer we say that any more granularity is left either unspecified or undefined. The more specifics we provide the more gap may be assumed. Thanks.
Received on Monday, 8 November 2004 18:18:31 UTC