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

RE: Yet another attempt to fix D-AC004

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2002 13:41:57 -0400
Message-ID: <5C76D29CD0FA3143896D08BB1743296AB899FE@bsebe001.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3c.org>

Hi,

>Ok, so how about this ...
>
>We use "component" to refer to software components like proxies,
>gateways, etc..  And we use the term "facilities" (any better 
>ideas?) to
>refer to security, privacy, etc..
>
>I personally prefer keeping the word "component" reserved for software
>components, because in the field of software architecture (in which I
>include our work), it is so reserved.
>

After querying the web for component and software architecture, I
have not run across a reservation for the term as you have asserted. What
I have found is that components are typically described as a function-
agnostic, packaging or container models which describe:

   What a component offers to other components
   What a component requires from other components
   What collaboration modes are used between components
     Synchronous via operation invocation
     Asynchronous via event notification
   Which component properties are configurable
   What the business life cycle operations are

Our resident software architecture expert has concurred yet hedged by saying 
that the term is highly overloaded. (Interesting side note is that he also mentioned
that pattern or principal based architectural descriptions are gaining favor relative
to component-based architectural descriptions.)

I have not been vigilant in my search. Hence, can you point to a reference(s)
which defines software component that supports your restricted definition?

Thanks, Mike
Received on Thursday, 27 June 2002 13:43:22 GMT

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