Re: Synchronous?

On Tuesday, March 18, 2003, at 09:53  PM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:

> Apologies for appearing to suggest we don't need definitions of these=20
> terms for the glossary.=A0 Of course we do.=A0 I was just impatient wit=
h=20
> the seemingly endless debate...=A0
> =A0
While it is not always the case, I find that many "endless debates" of=20
this kind are
actually important exercises in taking a machete to the undergrowth of
unwitting assumptions. In the case of "[a]synchronous", I think we've=20
done at least
four things:
- clarified the distinction between an MEP and the applications=20
programming model
   used to implement an agent (e.g. in examining notions like "wait",=20
"active" and so on)
- raised the issue of two-party vs. N-party interactions
- flushed out a couple of potential protocol dependencies (e.g. in=20
references to "same
   connection")
- made it less likely that we'll have to revise all of this when=20
choreography rears its head

These seem worthwhile to me, even though they could have been=20
accomplished a bit
quicker. (And I know I haven't exactly helped.... mea culpa.)