Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <[email protected]>
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <[email protected]>; "Walden
Mathews" <[email protected]>; "David Booth" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 10:32 PM
Subject: RE: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"
definitions]


>
> Just to make my objection more clear:
>
> Definitions:
>
> Synchronous: Blah, blah, blah.
>
> Asynchronous:  That which is not synchronous.
>
> Aha!  A barbershop quartet is not blah, blah, blah.  A used diaper is
> not blah, blah, blah.  My maiden aunt is not blah, blah, blah.  Thus
> they are all asynchronous.
>
> Come on ... At least let's get my maiden aunt out of the picture.
>

We can try, but she may sue. ;)

I think everyone would agree that "the messages exchanges of the
world may be said to be of two types: synchronous and asynchronous...".
Given that, and given that the "a-" prefix means "without" or "not" (or
something), it seems both reasonable and *elegant* (and consistent
with the way formal specs are written) to exploit that in the definition.

What happens if the definition of async is something other than the
"negation" of sync, and then you find an interaction that slips in between
the two definitions so it's neither?  I think that would be bad.

Walden