- From: Anne Thomas Manes <anne@manes.net>
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 11:19:12 -0500
- To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Walden Mathews Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 10:55 AM To: Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions] >> An interaction (one-way, two-way, or multi-way) is synchronous if the sender and receiver must >> communicate at the same time (the reciever must be available to receive the message when the >> sender sends it). A one-way message is asynchronous if the sender and receiver do not need to >> communicate at the same time (the message may be stored and delivered at a later time). >> >> Anne >Precisely. <wm> But this is still confusing if you use the word "asynchronous" to describe the sender or the message that is sent. If I'm unaware of your state as a receiver and I send you a message, am I sending synchronously or asynchronously? This usage seems wrong, and I think the definition adopted should rule it out. </wm> <atm> If the exchange is synchronous, then you will receive an error indicating that the receiver is not available to receive the message. (e.g. HTTP 404 - file not found). </atm> <wm> That means "synchronous" as applied to event sets means constraints on the timing of the events. And it means "synchronous" as applied to an application behavior means an intent or an expectation to accomplish something within a deadline, generally. </wm> <atm> I'm strictly talking about the communication process, not application-level expectations. I'd say that we ought to use a different term to describe application-level timing expectations. </atm> I realize these interpretations don't directly say what you want them to. What I'm wondering is whether they are correct enough to be applied to specific cases through example. (I'm really trying to find some commond ground among the theorists and pragmatists here.) Walden
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2003 11:18:39 UTC