RE: Issue: Synch/Asynch Web services

Also -- I do not agree that sync/async is only an implementation issue.
I think it is pretty clear that certain Web services, by their nature,
can be used sync but not async -- or async but not sync -- or in both
ways.  That means to me that it is not an implementation issue.

It also happens to be an issue that is really important to people who
are interested in business applications of Web services.  These
persistent attempts to declare the concepts either to be meaningless or
out of scope are very discouraging.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 12:08 PM
To: Geoff Arnold
Cc: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Issue: Synch/Asynch Web services



I don't see being implementation-neutral as corresponding to not being
able to talk about anything that relates to implementation. In cases
like sync/async where the common understanding is
implementation-related, I think it's very legitimate for WSA to discuss
it. 

We might want to distinguish the definition of the concept as it relates
to MEPs from the definition that relates to agents behavior. But I don't
think it's acceptable to only deal with the former and ignore the
latter.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 9:56 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue: Synch/Asynch Web services
> 
> 
> >> You're talking about the implementation of the agent, not the 
> >> properties of the MEP.
> >>
> >
> > True, but it's also true that usually people think of 2 as
> > asynchronous. That implies that people usually focus on the agent 
> > behavior when talking about sync/async. I agree with Roger 
> that saying
> > that 2 is synchronous would confuse a lot of people.
> >
> 
> I absolutely agree that "saying 2 is synchronous" would confuse a lot 
> of people. Fortunately we shouldn't ever be in the position of "saying

> 2", because we are implementation-neutral. Aren't we?
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 13:16:16 UTC