- From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
- Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 22:16:34 -0500
- To: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Anne Thomas Manes wrote: > The biggest issue I have with Ugo's definition (and all the others) is that > they tie synchrony with blocking versus non-blocking. Synchronous means "at > the same time". Asynchronous means "not at the same time". Whether or not > the sender has to wait idly for a response is a separate issue. "At the same time" is only one definition of synchronous. If we're going to play the dictionary game, dictionary.com yields (inter alia): synchronous <operating system, communications> 1. Two or more processes that depend upon the occurrences of specific events such as common timing signals. 2. Occurring at the same time or at the same rate or with a regular or predictable time relationship or sequence. Opposite: asynchronous. (1996-04-11) Source: The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2001 Denis Howe On this basis, an interaction pattern in which (e.g.) A sends a request to B and B sends a reply to A every day at 12:01 UTC for a year is synchronous. That sounds reasonable to me..... Personally I don't mind defining one of {synchronous, asynchronous} as the opposite of the other, as long as the definition involved is crisp enough that "opposite" is unambiguous. It's a perfectly respectable way of dealing with the "excluded middle" problem.
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 22:18:06 UTC