RE: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]
Christopher B Ferris <[email protected]> Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:05:32 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OF84CCBBD5.3726F67B-ON85256CEB.004B2976-85256CEB.004D6480@us.ibm.com> |
"Anne Thomas Manes" <[email protected]> wrote on 03/15/2003 06:11:32 PM: > 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. > > 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). > > Anne Precisely. <snip/> Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: [email protected] phone: +1 508 234 3624