W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2002

RE: [RTF] Glossary entry ""metric of Architectural component"

From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:28:56 -0500
Message-ID: <40AC2C8FB855D411AE0200D0B7458B2B07C597DF@scidalmsg01.csg.stercomm.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Wsa-public (E-mail)" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>


Given the current defn of Architecture in the glossary, I am fine with
using "software component" (we will discuss this further in RTF)

However, as I pointed out earlier, use of "software" as a qualifier
does not seem right for WS component or WS architecture. What is
by software can be accomplished by hardware tomorrow, may be using 
living cells day-after-tomorrow! 


Sterling Commerce   

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:15 PM
To: Damodaran, Suresh
Cc: Wsa-public (E-mail)
Subject: Re: [RTF] Glossary entry ""metric of Architectural component"

Hi Suresh,

On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 01:43:47PM -0500, Damodaran, Suresh wrote:
> Mark,
> >From glossary [2] I find:
> Architecture
> The software architecture of a program or computing system is the
> or structures of the system, which comprise software components, the
> externally visible properties of those components, and the relationships
> among them."
> =>
> 	Architecture component = (software) component of the (software)
> architecture.

Ok.  But why would "software component" not suffice?  "component" itself
is quite overloaded, and really should be qualified.  I'm just
suggesting that we use the qualification that is already in our
architecture definition, rather than define a new term.

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 15:29:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:57 UTC