Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]

MessageRoger,

"driven to do it that way"...?

I only feel "driven" to find out what it is that people don't like about
complementary definitions.  To me, they're solid engineering and elegant
to boot.  But if they're too short, examples are fine.  Just not "constraints
by example", which I think is a concern Ugo brought up.

Walden
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
  To: Assaf Arkin ; Walden Mathews ; Christopher B Ferris ; www-ws-arch@w3.org 
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 4:48 PM
  Subject: RE: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]


  I still REALLY do not like defining one as the negation of the other -- at least if that's all you do.  If you really feel driven to do it that way, however, perhaps it would be possible to define it that way in the first sentence and then add some explanatory material for the edification of the person who is really interested in that term in particular. 

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] 
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:35 PM
  To: Walden Mathews; Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]



    -----Original Message-----
    From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Walden Mathews
    Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:25 AM
    To: Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
    Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]


    I don't understand, but I want to.

    What would be an example of a oneway message exchange that was
    synchronous?  One that was asynchronous?  Actually, if it's oneway, can
    you really call it an exchange? 

    Good question, since the definition tend to imply its reciprocal: exchange one thing for another. But the term exchange as a noun is often used for where exchanges can be reciprocal or not (exchange something for nothing). So if you only allow one-way I would say it's not an exchange. But if you allow one-way and two-way, then the term exchange would be correct in both cases since it covers both possibilities.

    Can you elaborate on why the definitions should not be complementary?
    There a lots of examples that seem to work: typical vs atypical, sexual vs
    asexual.  What's wrong/different about this?

    The definition of sexual and asexual don't overlap in the sense that one is always the opposite of another. Neither does synchronous and asynchronous, but in our specific case they are sopposed to overlap, so I also agree that defining one as the negation of the other is best.

    arkin

    Thanks,

    Walden Mathews
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Christopher B Ferris 
      To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
      Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:58 PM
      Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]



      I'm certainly not at all comfortable with Ugo's definition because it only addresses request/response 
      and does not at all scale to either multi-party exchanges (as Geoff points out) or to 
      a simple oneway message exchange, which most certainly CAN be asynchronous. In fact, 
      the definition we seem to have chosen cannot be translated into either of these forms of MEP. 

      Secondly, I think it would be a mistake to simply take one term and make it the opposite or 
      logical not of the other. 

      My $0.02 USD. 

      Christopher Ferris
      Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
      email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
      phone: +1 508 234 3624 


            Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM> 
            Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
            03/15/2003 02:55 AM 
           To www-ws-arch@w3.org  
                  cc  
                  Subject Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"  definitions] 

                  

           




      Two quick questions:

      (1) Do people feel that we're converging on language which
      addresses both two-party and multi-party interactions?
      If not, does that matter?

      (2) Are we confident that our definition is robust
      enough to be adopted by the choreography folks?