RE: Draft language on MEPs, synchronous, and asynchronous.

+1

Stick a fork in it.

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 05/05/2003 02:08:54 PM:

> 
> OK.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 12:02 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Draft language on MEPs, synchronous, and asynchronous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > 
> > I'm sorry, I still think this is just giving up and that in fact the 
> > terms have a domain of validity in which they can be rigorously 
> > defined.
> >
> 
> Perhaps, and I also find some good food for thought in Suresh's
> proposal(s). On the other hand, we need to focus on the questions that
> people are looking for answers to, and I don't think this is one of
> them.  Geoff's rejoinder to my attempt over the weekend to extract a
> "friendly amendment" was a good
> one:  by getting "rigorous" we start bringing in dependencies on
> implementation-specific notions such as "communications channel,"
> which
> then have to be defined.
> 
> Procedurally, we were at the point of agreeing to whatever way Chris and
> Geoff came up with of resolving their different perspectives.  They have
> done that, Geoff has accepted some suggested tweaks, and I think it's
> time incorporate them and look for new fish to fry. 
> 
> Unless there is a substantial body of opinion that says "we MUST resolve
> this better before we can move on" I'd suggest we move on.  Dissenters
> are welcome to record an issue so that we are more or less required to
> revisit the matter before leaving Last Call.
> 
> 
> 
>