- 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