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

RE: [RTF] AC019 proposal to WSA WG

From: Joseph Hui <Joseph.Hui@exodus.net>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 13:22:36 -0700
Message-ID: <45258A4365C6B24A9832BFE224837D551D1C8F@SJDCEX01.int.exodus.net>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
[snip]
> > My take is that if RM is a requirement, then it's in --
> > in the doc, in someone's face (no derogative intended) --
> > regardless of what architecture style it'll turn out to be.
> > The architects will just have to make the style fit (RM).
> 
> Am I writing in a foreign language? 8-) 

Last I checked, Canada was still a foreign country, wedged between 
the 48 states and Alaska.  So feel free to see it as an American
option to treat Canadian English a foreign language, eh :-)

> Do you not believe me when I say
> that reliable messaging is not appropriate in all styles?
>
> If you do,
> why would you want to put in a requirement for something that wouldn't
> fit? 
> We're not talking about anything trivial here, we're 
> talking about
> a fundamental feature that would have huge impacts on performance, the
> ability to deal with partial failure (read; brittleness), 
> simplicity of
> implementation and deployment, etc..  You don't just make 
> something like
> that fit by wishing it did. 8-)

Styles ought not to be what drives the progress of an
architecture or the standards of such.  Substances, in
terms of functional requirements in our current context, do.
RM is IMV more a functional req than a specific solution.
There's a chasm between our understandings in what constitutes
a specific solution (based on our previous few message exchanges),
so I don't think this would go over easily, not to mention
the thread is now drifting towards "triviality."  Suffice
it to say, at this rate, if unchecked, "styles" and apprehension
(e.g. "it's non-trivial to do,") are going to get in the way of
establishing legit (*and practical*) requirements, RM being
one of them.

> > Letting style-yet-to-be influence a requirement is like
> > letting the tail wag the dog.  Sometimes it happens;
> > but it shouldn't be the norm, as in this case.  
> 
> I'd say the opposite; that driving a solution before there's an
> architecture is the tail wagging the dog.
> 
> If we want to pick a style now, I'd be happy with that.  As I've said
> before, there appears to be an implicit assumption that we're 
> rebuilding
> OMA/CORBA.  So let's just say that.  If we do, then I'd 
> accept reliable
> messaging as a requirement, because that style pretty much 
> requires it.

(Picking) a style as the premise to a requirement?
This is news to me; far out!

Cheers,

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
==========================================================

> 
> 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, 10 July 2002 16:21:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:01 GMT