Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]
Geoff Arnold <[email protected]> Sat, 15 Mar 2003 02:55:19 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Two quick questions: (1) Do people feel that we're converging on language which addresses both two-party and multi-party interactions? If not, does that matter? (2) Are we confident that our definition is robust enough to be adopted by the choreography folks?