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

Architecture consists of both software components and system components ( It
also consits of connectors and configuration etc).So, saying components is
safer, IMO.

The field of software architecture is vast in definitions[1] that we can
easily spend next few years with glossary :-)

Regards,
Sateesh
[1] http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/definitions.html


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 6:33 PM
> To: Damodaran, Suresh
> Cc: Wsa-public (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [RTF] Glossary entry ""metric of Architectural component"
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 05:09:10PM -0500, Damodaran, Suresh wrote:
> > I don't think I understand your comment, Mark.
> > Hardware is used today to implement security techniques. 
> See  [1] for a
> > sample.
> > I will not speak for some of the companies involved who are 
> well represented
> > in this WG, but I definitely think some components of Web Services 
> > will be implemented in hardware.
> 
> Oh, most definitely.  I never meant to suggest otherwise.  But
> "component" is not necessarily - using your term - an architectural
> component.  For example, a random number generator (hardware 
> or software
> based) would not be an architectural component in our 
> architecture, but
> might be called a "component" by some people.
> 
> > It is not appropriate to say that WSA is
> > a "software" architecture. Just "architecture" would suffice, IMO.
> 
> Well, no, I'd disagree quite strongly with that.  What we're designing
> is a software architecture.  But some of its software components can
> be deployed within hardware.  For example, dedicated hardware built to
> be a high performance proxy would be considered an architectural
> component by REST.
> 
> > Having said this, I will let the h/w company 
> representatives to pick up this
> > debate
> > if they chose - this is not something I want to spend time debating.
> 
> I agree that there's not a lot of value in debating hardware versus
> software.  My main objective here though, is to ensure two things;
> 
> - that we reuse as much existing terminology in the field of software
> architecture as we reasonably can
> - that the terminology we do use, whether new or existing, is self-
> consistent
> 
> MB
> -- 
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 July 2002 10:34:36 UTC