- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:52:49 -0600
- To: "Walden Mathews" <waldenm@optonline.net>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
This thread is huge. It seems to me that it would really be useful if people posted succinct candidate definitions under a different subject, like perhaps "Sync Definition". -----Original Message----- From: Walden Mathews [mailto:waldenm@optonline.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:46 PM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: The synchronous/asynchronous definition (was RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary on Response types) Roger, I agree with all you have said below, and have nothing additional to propose. My C and D's have been on the table since early yesterday, but I'd hoped for more feedback on the C, in case more D's need to be formulated. Thanks, Walden ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com> To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>; <www-ws-arch@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 12:55 PM Subject: RE: The synchronous/asynchronous definition (was RE: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary on Response types) > > I can't answer the question of whether it is worth this much effort. > Here is what I think the situation is: > > 1 - There are definitions of synchronous and asynchonous currently in > the Glossary. They are not good and definitely need to be replaced by > something -- or eliminated entirely, I suppose. I think (hope) > everybody agrees with this. > > 2 - The terms are certainly used in the Usage Scenarios document, and > I think that they are probably going to be in the Architecture > document itself, right? > > 3 - This thread makes it VERY clear (to me at least) that not > everybody has the same thing in mind when they use the terms. It > seems to me that this is a good reason to say that the terms really > need to be in the Glossary -- and then some discipline needs to be > exerted to remind people to use the terms in whatever that sense might > be. > > 4 - We have had at least one other lengthy thread, or series of > threads, on this subject a number of months ago. These threads died > away and much of the material in the current threads is similar > (although this one is more detailed). One option would be to let this > thread die out without resolution. In that case, it seems likely that > there will be yet another similar thread several months from now that > essentially treads the same ground YET AGAIN. > > My personal opinions: > > A - People with different backgrounds approach the terms in different > ways. That is, there is a synchronous(J, J=1,..,N) where N seems to > me to be about three or four. > > B - For each J the questions are not particularly unanswerable and > there may be some nits but they are not big deals. > > C - I'd like to see us, as quickly as possible, choose one value of J, > put a definition on paper, and get on with it. > > D - If C is not possible, I'd like to see us choose more than one > value of J, associate adverbs modifying the terms with those values of > J, put the definitions on paper, require that the terms only be used > with a modifier in the documents -- and get on with it. > > E - It seems to me that there has been ENOUGH discussion. It would > seem to me useful for the participants in the discussion to field > their candidates for C and D -- and to GET ON WITH IT. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 11:12 AM > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: The synchronous/asynchronous definition (was RE: Snapshot of > Web Services Glossary on Response types) > > > > Maybe I'm missing something, but this seems like either a nit that > we're spending too much time on or an unanswerable question that > better minds than ours have failed to resolve over the last 20 years > or so. > > It's important to maintain focus on the cases that we can actually add > value to, and ignore the ones that will get better by themselves or > will die anyway. (Beating the "triage" metaphor into the ground). I'm > *personally* (not wearing chair hat) not convinced that this is a good > use of our time. Could someone one the WG explain why we consider the > definition of synch/asynch worth this much effort on the mailing list? > Are we in striking distance of an acceptable definition? > > Thanks! > > >
Received on Tuesday, 25 February 2003 13:53:45 UTC