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

architecture notation

From: Narahari, Sateesh <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 11:51:01 -0600
Message-ID: <33692E0AA56A034EB5C0103AB7EC8CC00DE31C@denmails8.jdedwards.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Quick question to the people in the know.

Does Ws-Arch charter includes inventing a notation for software
architectures ?

Regards,
Sateesh 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 25, 2002 11:45 AM
> To: Sandeep Kumar
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does this make it more flexible?
> 
> Mike drew the triangle and 3 stacks: wire, description, and discovery
> agency.
> 
> I don't think its appropriate to associate the description 
> stack with the
> 'publish' interaction... it should be associated with the description
> object
> I don't think its appropriate to associate the discovery 
> agency stack with
> the 'find' interaction, it should be associated with the agency.
> I think wire stack can be applied to all 'sides' which indicate
> communication so that makes it somewhat less usefull.
> 
> I guess I just don't understand what you have in mind.
> 
> There is a need for some words to describe the 'roles' and 
> 'sides'.. which
> I've submitted. Do they help clarify this?
> 
> Heather Kreger
> Web Services Lead Architect
> STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
> kreger@us.ibm.com
> 919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
> 
> 
> "Sandeep Kumar" <sandkuma@cisco.com> on 09/25/2002 01:21:08 PM
> 
> To:    Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>,
>        <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
> cc:
> Subject:    RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> I have been thinking that the triangle approach really represents the
> WS Programming/Interaction Paradigm.
> Trying to define architecture stack around the paradigm picture is
> a little counter-intuitive (on a second thought).
> 
> Can we define architecture stack for each side of the triangle/square
> (as in Mike's proposal)? It gives us the freedom to simply be 
> flexible and
> use the
> real-estate more freely.
> 
> Just a thought.
> 
> Thanks,
> Sandeep Kumar
> 
> Cisco Systems
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Heather Kreger
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 2:37 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org; michael.mahan@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about we do the simple triangle first that 'seems' client 
> server.  I
> have sent words for the triangle to chris the editor to render in
> acceptable xml.
> 
> The only problem with the triange with the peer to peer is 
> that it makes it
> look like the pure requester is part of the scenario. I'd 
> rather create a
> new triangle that we present separately with appropriate words.
> 
> So, first simple 'requester/provider' triangle (btw, we 
> didn't call them
> client and server on purpose for exactly this reason)
> Then we do a peer to peer
> And then Rogers variation:
> See attached:
> 
> (See attached file: triangle.variations.ppt)
> 
> ideas?
> 
> Heather Kreger
> Web Services Lead Architect
> STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
> kreger@us.ibm.com
> 919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
> 
> 
> michael.mahan@nokia.com@w3.org on 09/23/2002 03:28:58 PM
> 
> Sent by:    www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> 
> 
> To:    <jones@research.att.com>, 
> <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, Heather
>        Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:    <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Subject:    RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a diagram which better demonstrates p2p graphically.
> 
> BR, Mike
> 
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext jones@research.att.com [mailto:jones@research.att.com]
> >Sent: September 23, 2002 01:57 PM
> >To: RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com; jones@research.att.com;
> >kreger@us.ibm.com
> >Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
> >
> >
> >
> >I think the compromise would be to base most of the initial 
> discussion
> >around the simple, unadorned triangle, laying out the range of
> >possibilities
> >in the text.  The elaborated diagrams should either reflect 
> a union of
> >the abstractions and/or instantiations in the space or should reflect
> >a particular architectural style.  I would be comfortable with
> >the former
> >if it doesn't make things too confusing, but would gladly accept the
> >latter.
> >
> >--mark
> >
> >Mark A. Jones
> >AT&T Labs
> >Shannon Laboratory
> >Room 2A-02
> >180 Park Ave.
> >Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971
> >
> >email: jones@research.att.com
> >phone: (973) 360-8326
> >  fax: (973) 236-6453
> >
> >     From RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com Mon Sep 23 13:45 EDT 2002
> >     Delivered-To: jones@research.att.com
> >     X-Authentication-Warning: mail-pink.research.att.com:
> >postfixfilter set sender to RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com using -f
> >     X-Server-Uuid: EE520CAE-7FCA-4D2A-A2DC-297BA4A725CC
> >     From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)"
> ><RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
> >     To: "'Mark Jones'" <jones@research.att.com>,
> >             "Heather Kreger" <kreger@us.ibm.com>
> >     Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >     Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
> >     Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:44:36 -0700
> >     MIME-Version: 1.0
> >     X-WSS-ID: 11918CF6275166-01-01
> >     Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >     X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20
> >
> >     I am still concerned that these diagrams seem visually
> >to restrict web
> >     services to one messaging pattern.  No matter what the
> >words might say in
> >     the text, I think that having pictures that leave this
> >impression would not
> >     be good.
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     From: Mark Jones [mailto:jones@research.att.com]
> >     Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:50 PM
> >     To: Heather Kreger
> >     Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >     Subject: Re: arch diagrams from the f2f
> >
> >
> >     Heather,
> >
> >     I  added 3 slides at the end of the set that you sent
> >out.  I rearranged
> >     and simplified the boxes and labels a bit.  I also
> >began to append
> >     concrete technology labels on some of the boxes.  (I
> >just made a cursory
> >     pass at this to see what it would look like.  Feel free
> >to further flesh
> >     it out.)  At least while we are deciding on the correct
> >set of boxes and
> >     labels, I think it helps to identify them.
> >
> >     Mark Jones
> >     AT&T
> >
> >
> >     Heather Kreger wrote:
> >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >Hi folks, Here are the architecture diagrams I drafted
> >up during our
> >     >meeting today. I have some words for some of this
> >stuff that I will
> >     >align and send to the group as soon as
> >     >humanly possible.
> >     >
> >     >(See attached file: w3cStack.ppt)
> >     >
> >     >I have permission from IBM to submit both this stack
> >and the origional
> >     >triangle to the W3C for inclusion into the architecture and
> >     >modification by the working group.
> >     >
> >     >Heather Kreger
> >     >Web Services Lead Architect
> >     >STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
> >     >kreger@us.ibm.com
> >     >919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 13:51:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:06 GMT