- From: Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>
- Date: Sat, 03 May 2003 19:01:49 -0400
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> I for one would be happy to substitute something like: > > MEP's involving that require a response from the responder back to the > initiator before the initator can initiate another communication that > responder using the same communication channel are frequently > referred to a > "synchronous." > > I see that as a friendly amendment that defines "closely coupled in > time" > more rigorously. I actually see this as an excellent argument *against* trying to get more rigorous. First, the "same communication channel" is hopelessly transport-specific. (Try that over MOM or SMTP!) Second, a MEP that requires me to send you a message on the third Tuesday of every month is perfectly *synchronous*. "Closeness" of coupling is a relative thing. Used informally, the terms can be usefully descriptive. Let's leave it at that.
Received on Sunday, 4 May 2003 07:29:32 UTC