- From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 11:02:29 -0400
- To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-wsa-comments@w3.org
Excellent analysis, Roger. But I guess you'd expect me to say that, since I was the one pushing for a definition of sync/async based on common clocks. I'd forgotten the Lamport (not "Lamprey"!) paper, but I agree that it's seminal - even more so than Waldo et al's "A Note on Distributed Computing". I plead guilty, and unrepentantly so, to the "refusal to define". It was born not out of fatigue but with a principled objection to the idea of including language based on wholly irrelevant implementation issues. Synchronous and asynchronous interactions should not depend on whether processes are running and ready or activated as needed: we don't make these distinctions in the SOAP spec. It's worth mentioning that in Lamport's paper a "process" is simply an abstraction capable of emitting and receiving events. There are no particular implementation characteristics implied.....
Received on Monday, 4 August 2003 11:02:57 UTC