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

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Anne Thomas Manes
  Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:12 PM
  To: Walden Mathews; Christopher B Ferris; [email protected]
  Subject: RE: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"
definitions]


  The biggest issue I have with Ugo's definition (and all the others) is
that they tie synchrony with blocking versus non-blocking. Synchronous means
"at the same time". Asynchronous means "not at the same time". Whether or
not the sender has to wait idly for a response is a separate issue.

  +1

  An interaction (one-way, two-way, or multi-way) is synchronous if the
sender and receiver must communicate at the same time (the reciever must be
available to receive the message when the sender sends it). A one-way
message is asynchronous if the sender and receiver do not need to
communicate at the same time (the message may be stored and delivered at a
later time).

  And another +1

  arkin

  Anne
    -----Original Message-----
    From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Walden Mathews
    Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 1:25 PM
    To: Christopher B Ferris; [email protected]
    Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"
definitions]


    I don't understand, but I want to.

    What would be an example of a oneway message exchange that was
    synchronous?  One that was asynchronous?  Actually, if it's oneway, can
    you really call it an exchange?

    Can you elaborate on why the definitions should not be complementary?
    There a lots of examples that seem to work: typical vs atypical, sexual
vs
    asexual.  What's wrong/different about this?

    Thanks,

    Walden Mathews
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Christopher B Ferris
      To: [email protected]
      Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:58 PM
      Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"
definitions]



      I'm certainly not at all comfortable with Ugo's definition because it
only addresses request/response
      and does not at all scale to either multi-party exchanges (as Geoff
points out) or to
      a simple oneway message exchange, which most certainly CAN be
asynchronous. In fact,
      the definition we seem to have chosen cannot be translated into either
of these forms of MEP.

      Secondly, I think it would be a mistake to simply take one term and
make it the opposite or
      logical not of the other.

      My $0.02 USD.

      Christopher Ferris
      Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
      email: [email protected]
      phone: +1 508 234 3624


            Geoff Arnold <[email protected]>
            Sent by: [email protected]
            03/15/2003 02:55 AM
           To [email protected]
                  cc
                  Subject Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on
"synchronous"  definitions]








      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?