Re: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary

Roger,

I agree with you (this time in public).  While the group complains that
"blocking" is implementation detail and therefore technically an inaccurate
description of synchrony, I think the reality is that the readership of the
architecture document and glossary will tend to be programmers and
IT people who will best understand in terms of blocking threads or
processes.  It's going to be a little hard to bridge between common
imprecise understandings and more esoteric ones based on deeper
analysis, like the one Frank offered.  See my rough attempt at [1].

In reading through the scenarios, I noticed some strange usage of the
terms in question, like "send an asynchronous message".  As I understand
it, synchrony is a property of a communication relationship, and so has
no meaning when applied to a single message.  Here, it could mean the sender
doesn't expect a reply at any particular time.  It could also mean the
equivalent of "unsolicited".  Then there's a reference to a "synchronous
HTTP POST".  Not sure if "synchronous" adds any meaning there.  I
can visualize a task to clean up the usage of "synch" and "asynch" in
the scenarios document.  Part of that could be through refinement of their
respective definitions, but some of it is in scrutinizing their application,
too.  Perhaps this is a candidate issue.

Thanks,

Walden

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0283.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>; "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>;
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>; <www-ws-arch@w3.org>; "Hugo
Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary


>
> Sort of sounds to me like this definition would shrink the effective
> scope of "synchronous" essentially to zero, at least as far as matter
> that concern this WG.  I do not think that this would be useful.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 5:20 PM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: Assaf Arkin; David Booth; Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org; Hugo
> Haas
> Subject: Re: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
>
>
>
> here is a very straightforward definition of synchronous:
>
> A rendezvous of two activities is synchronous if they complete
> simultaneously.
>
> The language, if not the definition, comes from Communicating
> Sequential Processes.
>
> One might try to sharpen this up by defining simultaneously in terms of
> clocks etc. But that is not necessary; because an alternative view of
> this definition is:
>
> An activity involved in a synchronous rendezvous may assume that the
> rendezvous is complete for both sides if it 's side completes.
>
> Frank
>
>
>
> On Saturday, February 22, 2003, at 12:10  PM, Cutler, Roger
> (RogerCutler) wrote:
>
> >
> > Oh, perhaps I should express an opinion about the alternatives.  My
> > druthers, for what they are worth, is that the "blocking" definition
> > is the least desirable.  I base this on two factors: 1)I don't really
> > know what it means in a world where applications can easily have
> > multiple threads; 2)It does not seem to have any aspect of timeliness,
>
> > or shortness of time, in it -- and my intuitive understanding of
> > synchronous is that it has something to do with things happening in a
> > timely manner.  I personally like the ones that are based on how fast
> > things happen the best.
> >
> > That's my opinion, but I am MORE than willing to accept any of the
> > approaches to the concept, as long as it is just one definition.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 9:05 PM
> > To: 'Assaf Arkin'; David Booth; Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Cc: 'Hugo Haas'
> > Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
> >
> >
> > Yeah, this is the approach to synchronous that I recall impressed me
> > as being MOST different from the others.  I recall that there was a
> > considerably more formal definition along these lines some months ago.
>
> > Well, if not more formal at least longer, but along the same lines
> > with the concept of agreeing about the time of day being the key
> > factor.
> >
> > OK, there is the "blocking" thing, as in David's definition, there is
> > this thing with agreeing about timing of clocks, and there have also
> > been other definitions that were pretty formal but which ran along the
>
> > lines of "how soon" things happen.
> >
> > IMHO there are at least three completely different understandings of
> > what synchronous means floating around.  They all sound really good to
>
> > me, but they are not the same.  I would REALLY like it if we could
> > agree on one of them and make sure that when we use the word we agree
> > that we are using the word in that sense.  Or, perhaps we could subset
>
> > them somehow, as in synchronous(1) ... Synchronous(N).
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 12:26 PM
> > To: David Booth; Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Cc: 'Hugo Haas'
> > Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> >> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> >> Behalf Of David Booth
> >> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 10:09 AM
> >> To: Martin Chapman; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >> Cc: 'Hugo Haas'
> >> Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> At 04:35 PM 2/20/2003 -0800, Martin Chapman wrote:
> >>> hmmm don't like the defn of synchronous:
> >>
> >> I struggled with this one, and I'm not sure my proposed wording is
> >> ideal, but what I was trying to do was more clearly differentiate
> > between
> >> synchronous and asynchronous.   The old definition was very vague.
> >>
> >> Somehow we need to convey the idea that with "synchronous"
> >> interactions the parties are synchronized in some way.  (!)  This
> >> could mean "at the same time", but in the case of two communicating
> >> parties it generally means the sending party waits for the receiving
> >> party to do something before the sending party continues.  Thus, they
>
> >> are "synchronized".  I couldn't figure
> >> out any better way to precisely capture this.  Any ideas?
> >
> > Define that operation involves sending/receiving at initiator site,
> > and receiving/sending at respondent site. Define "time" to be bound by
>
> > T1
> > (lower) and T2 (upper). I assume we can all agree to that.
> >
> > Given just sending and receiving primitives (e.g. TCP
> > send()/receive()),
> > initiator and respondent can agree on T1/T2 after concluding
> operation.
> > With just these two communication primitives they can synchronize
> their
> > clock within some resolution (but don't look for atomic clock type of
> > synchronization here).
> >
> >
> >> I agree that store-and-forward would NOT be synchronous, but I don't
> >> see store-and-forward as the opposite of direct communication.
> >> Communication can certainly be indirect (i.e., go through
> >> intermediaries) but still be synchronous.  So although synchronous
> >> communication is often direct, I don't see that as a distinguishing
> >> characteristic.
> >
> > An interaction can be synchronous even if it uses some
> > store-and-forward
> > mechanism, even if both request and response are stored and forwarded.
> >
> > Test for synchronisity of interaction is something like that:
> >
> > If initiator sent request at time T1 then it can conclude that
> > respondent did not start performing interaction before time T1 If
> > initiator received request at time T2 then it can conclude that
> > respondent did not continue performing interaction after time T2 (and
> > vice versa)
> >
> > You can clearly see this is not true for asynchronous interaction.
> >
> > arkin
> >
> >>
> >>> and
> >>> the fact that the reply (if any) comes back on the same
> >>> communication channel as the request.
> >>
> >> Interesting thought.  Must that always be true?  I could certainly
> >> imagine an input-output operation in which the input uses one
> >> communication channel and the output uses another.  So again, I don't
>
> >> see this as a distinguishing characteristic of synchronous
> >> communication.
> >>
> >> Anyone else have other suggestions for this definition?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> David Booth
> >> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
> >> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 13:10:04 UTC