RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary

I think part of the difficulty here is trying to define synchronous and asynchronous the same way across different levels. As Assaf said in a previous note, synchronous and asynchronous can have different specific meanings depending on the scope/layer/context we are referring to. 
In our case, we should give a definition that applies at the level I would roughly call the SOAP level. Not at the transport/transfer level. Not at the choreography level. 
That's the level I had in mind when I sent out [1]. 

> Sooooo -- I am really wondering how one can make an 
> asynchronous message
> out of synchronous components.

The usual example is two HTTP requests making up a single request-response interaction. I think everybody agrees that HTTP is a synchronous protocol at the transport/transfer level. Nevertheless, the whole interaction would be asynchronous at the SOAP request-response level if you follows a definition like the one I gave at [1]..

Ugo

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0261.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
> [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 12:25 PM
> To: Walden Mathews; Ugo Corda; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
> 
> 
> That's a really good idea.  Using your suggestions from
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Feb/0300.html:
> 
> If synchronous means "blocking", then it you block you block -- you
> cannot create an unblocked interaction out of blocking interactions --
> so under that meaning you can't build an asynch out of synch's.
> 
> If synchronous means solicited, then again I don't see how one can
> combine solicited messages to create an unsolicited one.
> 
> If, however, synchronous means "relatively short time" (which most
> people on this thread seem to think is not a good idea), then I guess
> you can put together a bunch of messages that take a short time into a
> whole that takes a long time.  This seems, however, relatively trivial
> and maybe it illustrates why people don't seem to like the 
> "short time"
> approach.
> 
> Even if you go to Mr. Arkin's rather formal definition which, if I
> understand it, says that a message is synchronous if it is 
> possible for
> people on the two ends to agree what time it is -- it still 
> seems to me
> that if you compose a message out of a bunch of messages 
> where you know
> what time it is, in the composite it still should be possible 
> to figure
> out what time it is.
> 
> Sooooo -- I am really wondering how one can make an 
> asynchronous message
> out of synchronous components.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net] 
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:48 PM
> To: Ugo Corda; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
> 
> 
> Er, especially if no one agrees on what these terms actually 
> mean.  Ugo,
> would it be possible for you to restate what you said below without
> using either 'synch' term?  Maybe if each of us tried that 
> once or twice
> we might get to a better place?
> 
> WM
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
> To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>;
> <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 1:38 PM
> Subject: RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
> 
> 
> >
> > >Incidentally, in one of the earlier go-arounds on this subject I 
> > >believe that it was pointed out that one can build a synchronous 
> > >interaction out of asynchronous components.
> >
> > And vice-versa, one could build an asynchronous interaction out of
> synchronous components.
> >
> > Ugo
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 15:34:41 UTC