- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 09:17:22 -0500
- To: "Sai Surya Kiran Evani" <evani@informatik.uni-freiburg.de>, doug@rds.com
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
I would personally appreciate this. I think that it would be a VERY bad idea to call "synchronous" the case where A sends a message to B, A goes about other business and checks periodically to see if B has returned an answer -- since this is the case that virtually all of the references you will get if you do a Google search on asynchronous Web services (outside our mailing list) will refer to. I think that the messages are clearly ordered, but the world calls this asynchronous. -----Original Message----- From: Sai Surya Kiran Evani [mailto:evani@informatik.uni-freiburg.de] Sent: Monday, August 25, 2003 3:41 AM To: doug@rds.com Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Book chapter on Synch/Asynch Hi, Would calling the message exchanges ordered/unordered instead of sync/async be more clear? Thanks, Kiran. Doug Kaye wrote: >Hello, Hao & Roger. > >I'm the author of the chapter/book in question. To the extent that I've >read and understand your arguments (I read the two messages you >referenced below), I agree with the definition. OTOH, I didn't find >another explanation of the "conundrum" so there may be issues I'm not >considering. > >To my mind the distinction between synch and asynch comes down to the >opportunities for implementation. Specifically, a synch implementation >can (but not must) be non-event driven. It can be designed using a >single-task send-wait-receive model. Not that this is recommended, but >it's at least possible. Asynchronous processing implies an event-driven >model in which the next-to-arrive message is not deterministic. This >assumes no errors *at the layer under consideration*. As was pointed >out, asynch or synch at one level may be based on a different MEP at >the lower layer(s) and vice versa. > > ...doug > >Doug Kaye, CEO >RDS Strategies LLC >doug@rds.com, www.rds.com >v: 415.453.1400, f: 415.459.0103 > >Message-ID: ><686B9E7C8AA57A45AE8DDCC5A81596AB046AE756@sydthqems01.int.tisa.com.au> >From: "He, Hao" <Hao.He@thomson.com.au> >To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, >www-ws-arch@w3.org >Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2003 08:32:31 +1000 >Subject: RE: Book chapter on Synch/Asynch > > >Well, it appears to me that the author agrees with Geoff >(http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Aug/0060.html) and >me (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Aug/0054.html). >That is:"if ordering is important, it is sync. Otherwise, it is >async.". > >Hao > >-----Original Message----- >From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] >Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2003 5:57 AM >To: www-ws-arch@w3.org >Subject: Book chapter on Synch/Asynch > > > >Those interested in the definition and architectural implications of >"synchronous" and "asynchronous" web services might wish to look at >http://www.rds.com/download-request.php?file=books/looselyCoupled/Chapt >er-09 >-Async.pdf > >This is a free chapter of LOOSELY COUPLED by Doug Kaye >http://www.rds.com/books/looselyCoupled/index.html >
Received on Monday, 25 August 2003 12:36:05 UTC