- From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:51:38 -0400
- To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> 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.
Can we replace the notion of being "used" sync or async with something
a little more precise? What would be observably different? And
"in both ways"...?!
> 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.
>
Hmmmmm........ I'm surprised that you would characterize a
formally verifiable approach grounded in message exchange patterns as
either meaningless or out of scope. But you just said something
much more interesting to me: "It also happens to be an issue that is
really important to people who are interested in business applications
of Web services." Presumably this means that you (or others) are able to
complete the following paragraph:
It is really important that WSA nails down definitions for
"synchronous" and "asynchronous", because this will
allow me to ______________ in applying Web services to
business applications. If they don't do so, I won't be able to -
or I'll have to ___________ instead.
Curious,
Geoff
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2003 13:50:49 UTC