Re: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility

----- Original Message -----
From: "Champion, Mike" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:11 AM
Subject: RE: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility


>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 8:59 AM
> > To: '[email protected] '
> > Subject: Re: Transport-specific SOAP semantics - was Re: Visibility
> >
> >
> >
> > +1. And we need to be consistent with this when [if] we decide to
> > define "synchronous" and "asynchronous".....
> >
> Could you elaborate?  Maybe you mean that the definition of synch/asynch
> should be independent of the protocol?
>
> I think that would help (I'm warming to the synch/asynch topic at long
> last!).

Careful!  The pond may thaw, the fish awake.

 >  Perhaps if we defined synch/asynch at the level of MEPs rather
> than protocol-level messages (not to mention implementation details such
as
> "blocking") we might get some agreement.

This is in essence my "counter-proposal", to define "synchronous r/r",
"asynchronous r/r" and let the bigger fish continue their slumber.

WM

> >
>
>