RE: Synchronous?

Apologies for appearing to suggest we don't need definitions of these terms for the glossary.  Of course we do.  I was just impatient with the seemingly endless debate...  
 
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:09 AM
To: David Booth
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Synchronous?



So where are we on getting definitions of synchronous and asynchronous into the glossary? 

I seem to recall the following results to your proposed definition: 

1 - A storm of criticism and discussion of nuances.  The most memorable, to me, being the objection that a definition needs to work for interactions involving more than two parties.  But also many people saying, "I don't like blocking, you have to use time", "I don't like time, you have to use logic", and "I don't like logic, you have to use "blocking".  Or whatever.

2 - A fairly major new proposed definition from Anne, modified by Mike, that garnered a certain amount of support from the weary masses, yearning to breath free of this issue.

3 - Another, somewhat less violent (probably just from weariness), storm of criticism and nuancing. 

4 - A suggestion by Eric that we forget the whole thing in favor of another approach that has not yet been stormed and nuanced -- opposed by me on the grounds that the words are used all over the place and it's now quite apparent that different people are interpreting them to mean different things.

5 - Exhausted silence. 

May I remind you that the clock keeps ticking, we are supposed to have a product out in some time shorter than the length of time that it takes for most of us to leave the group and for the world to stop paying any attention to what we are doing, and there are PLENTY more issues to address?  Can we somehow PLEASE stop this cycle of failure and agree on something?