Re: Sync Definition #2 (corrected)

RE: Sync Definition #2 (corrected)Ugo,

Could I suggest you find a better phrase than "have to wait"?  The problem is, I can
read that to mean that the response is immediate.  Or I can read that to mean that
the requestor doesn't expect a response in any particular time frame.  I think you're
getting at the latter, which I believe is a correct definition.

Thanks,
Walden
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Ugo Corda 
  To: Assaf Arkin ; [email protected] 
  Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:46 PM
  Subject: RE: Sync Definition #2 (corrected)


  Well, it's a matter of definitions, and evidently yours does not correspond to mine. I hope people will vote soon so that we can put this issue behind ...

  Ugo
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:[email protected]]
    Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 12:15 PM
    To: Ugo Corda; [email protected]
    Subject: RE: Sync Definition #2 (corrected)


    I think you have just defined a synchronous interaction (request/response, see formal definition) in terms of an asynchronous transport (i.e. one that does send and receive actions independently).

    arkin
      -----Original Message-----
      From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda
      Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:36 AM
      To: Ugo Corda; [email protected]
      Subject: RE: Sync Definition #2 (corrected)


      Asynchronous: 
      A request/response interaction is said to be asynchronous when the request and response are chronologically decoupled. In other words, the client agent does not have to "wait" for the response once it issues the initial request. The exact meaning of "not having to wait" depends on the characteristics of the client agent (including the transfer protocol it uses). Examples include receiving the response on a different thread, on a different socket, on a different end-point, by polling the server, etc.

      Synchronous: 
      The opposite of asynchronous.