RE: Synchronous?
"Newcomer, Eric" <[email protected]> Tue, 18 Mar 2003 21:53:42 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <DCF6EF589A22A14F93DFB949FD8C4AB201073FBE@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2EDC2.C02D94EA Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Apologies for appearing to suggest we don't need definitions of these = terms for the glossary. Of course we do. I was just impatient with the = seemingly endless debate... =20 =20 Eric -----Original Message----- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 11:09 AM To: David Booth Cc: [email protected] Subject: Synchronous? So where are we on getting definitions of synchronous and asynchronous = into the glossary?=20 I seem to recall the following results to your proposed definition:=20 1 - A storm of criticism and discussion of nuances. The most memorable, = to me, being the objection that a definition needs to work for = interactions involving more than two parties. But also many people = saying, "I don't like blocking, you have to use time", "I don't like = time, you have to use logic", and "I don't like logic, you have to use = "blocking". Or whatever. 2 - A fairly major new proposed definition from Anne, modified by Mike, = that garnered a certain amount of support from the weary masses, = yearning to breath free of this issue. 3 - Another, somewhat less violent (probably just from weariness), storm = of criticism and nuancing.=20 4 - A suggestion by Eric that we forget the whole thing in favor of = another approach that has not yet been stormed and nuanced -- opposed by = me on the grounds that the words are used all over the place and it's = now quite apparent that different people are interpreting them to mean = different things. 5 - Exhausted silence.=20 May I remind you that the clock keeps ticking, we are supposed to have a = product out in some time shorter than the length of time that it takes = for most of us to leave the group and for the world to stop paying any = attention to what we are doing, and there are PLENTY more issues to = address? Can we somehow PLEASE stop this cycle of failure and agree on = something? ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2EDC2.C02D94EA Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"> <HTML><HEAD> <META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; = charset=3Diso-8859-1"> <TITLE>Synchronous?</TITLE> <META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2600.0" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><SPAN class=3D263485002-19032003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Apologies for appearing to suggest we don't need definitions of = these=20 terms for the glossary. Of course we do. I was just = impatient with=20 the seemingly endless debate... </FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D263485002-19032003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV> <DIV><SPAN class=3D263485002-19032003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff = size=3D2>Eric</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE> <DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader dir=3Dltr align=3Dleft><FONT = face=3DTahoma=20 size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> Cutler, Roger = (RogerCutler)=20 [mailto:[email protected]]<BR><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, March = 18, 2003=20 11:09 AM<BR><B>To:</B> David Booth<BR><B>Cc:</B>=20 [email protected]<BR><B>Subject:</B> = Synchronous?<BR><BR></FONT></DIV><!-- Converted from text/rtf format --> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>So where are we on getting definitions = of=20 synchronous and asynchronous into the glossary?</FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>I seem to recall the following results = to your=20 proposed definition:</FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>1 - A storm of criticism and discussion = of=20 nuances. The most memorable, to me, being the objection that a=20 definition needs to work for interactions involving more than two=20 parties. But also many people saying, "I don't like blocking, = you have=20 to use time", "I don't like time, you have to use logic", and "I don't = like=20 logic, you have to use "blocking". Or whatever.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>2 - A fairly major new proposed = definition from=20 Anne, modified by Mike, that garnered a certain amount of support from = the=20 weary masses, yearning to breath free of this issue.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>3 - Another, somewhat less violent = (probably just=20 from weariness), storm of criticism and nuancing.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>4 - A suggestion by Eric that we forget = the whole=20 thing in favor of another approach that has not yet been stormed and = nuanced=20 -- opposed by me on the grounds that the words are used all over the = place and=20 it's now quite apparent that different people are interpreting them to = mean=20 different things.</FONT></P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>5 - Exhausted silence.</FONT> </P> <P><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>May I remind you that the clock keeps = ticking, we=20 are supposed to have a product out in some time shorter than the = length of=20 time that it takes for most of us to leave the group and for the world = to stop=20 paying any attention to what we are doing, and there are PLENTY more = issues to=20 address? Can we somehow PLEASE stop this cycle of failure and = agree on=20 something?</FONT></P><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML> ------_=_NextPart_001_01C2EDC2.C02D94EA--