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

RE: arch diagrams from the f2f

From: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 20:25:59 -0400
Message-ID: <DCF6EF589A22A14F93DFB949FD8C4AB2BA113C@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <jones@research.att.com>, <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: <kreger@us.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

I'm digging back through the email trails following the F2F to mine for text for the spec.  I'm not sure I've checked everything to see whether anyone +1'ed this or not -- anyway

+1!

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:40 PM
To: jones@research.att.com; distobj@acm.org
Cc: kreger@us.ibm.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f



I personally like the idea of expressing a logical model, followed by a
logical/physical model where various SAMPLE technologies are expressed.  The
key thing is to not constrain the mapping between logical and physical to
current technology choices.

BTW, I think allowing evolution of physical or actual technologies is a key
to any organizations success.  So let's not constrain ourselves to only
today's works.

Hence why I think a logical model, followed by a sample mapping expresses
all the things we want from the diagrams.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of jones@research.att.com
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:08 AM
> To: distobj@acm.org; jones@research.att.com
> Cc: kreger@us.ibm.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: arch diagrams from the f2f
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Some clarifications below...
>
> 	Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:26:12 -0400
> 	From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
> 	To: Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>
> 	Cc: Heather Kreger <kreger@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
> 	Subject: Re: arch diagrams from the f2f
>
> 	I wanted to say that the concern I raised about the
> triangle diagram -
> 	that it's logical, but may be interpreted as suggesting
> the existence
> 	of particular technologies - appears to be the case in
> Mark's slides
> 	(though at the f2f we appeared to have started down this path).
>
> I don't disagree that the overall diagram is logical, and
> even the more
> detailed views with Heather's categories are logical.  A reasonably
> sound pedagogical approach would be to introduce them as such.
>
> As we attempt to ground the reader in the landscape of actual and
> emerging technologies though, it think it would be useful to indicate
> where they seem to fit in that picture.  This hardly seems like it
> should be left as an exercise to the reader.  Perhaps it would make
> even more sense to instantiate the diagrams with subsets of
> technologies that represent coherent architectural styles.  This would
> not leave the reader with the impression that every application would
> require the union of the technologies.
>
> 	I consider it a fundamental advance of the Web over
> previous distributed
> 	systems, that "publish" and "find" are integrated into
> "interact", all
> 	by virtue of the joined-at-the-hip relationship between
> a URI and the
> 	HTTP GET method.
>
> You somehow still have to come by the URI in the first place, whether
> by work of mouth, google, etc.  Being spidered is a form of "publish".
> Using google is a form of "find".  Also, any of the logical
> legs of the
> triangle can obviously use HTTP GET in/as their implementation.
>
> 	I suggest that we refrain from attempting to map
> specific technologies
> 	to this diagram for this reason.  If we're going to do
> any mapping,
> 	we should have a separate physical diagram with which
> to do that.
>
> But, again, for pedagogical reasons, I think it would be useful to
> instantiate the logical diagram when we do so.
>
> Mark
>
> 	Thanks.
>
> 	MB
> 	--
> 	Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> 	Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> 	http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 20:26:33 GMT

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