W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2003

Re: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow's call)

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 12:19:15 +0200
To: Mario Jeckle <mario@jeckle.de>
Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk, RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com
Message-ID: <20030407101915.GI7530@w3.org>

Hi Mario.

* Mario Jeckle <mario@jeckle.de> [2003-04-06 20:11+0200]
> >I like that.  It's beginning to look three dimensional.
> Good point! Sure, the XML base technology is underlying all XML 
> technologies listed within the diagram. Even some potential vertical 
> aspects of the architecture also rely on XML technologies (e.g. XML 
> Digital Signatures).
> Perhaps Hugo's color coded suggestion could be an option. But I think it 
> could suggest to the reader that all parts inside the nice colored big 
> box are parts of XML base technology ...
> 
> Putting the ideas together I updated the diagram to
> a) show that WSDL and Aggreagation are directly based on XML base 
> Technology.

I think that showing this makes the diagram confusing. I think I
prefer my big background box in a different color.

> b) Description can (if you really want to) be done without Messaging.

Sorry, I didn't get that. Are you saying that one could describe an
HTTP POST with WSDL which would not involve an XML message?

Actually, talking about that, the diagram puts HTTP in the transport
box, which makes messages mandatory and rules out things like say the
SOAP GET binding, I think.

We should find a way to acknowledge application protocols that are
missing from this picture. Maybe the transport should be L-shaped,
peek its head into the messaging box, the top part being called
application protocols.

Here is what I have in mind (since I don't have the master copy of the
diagram and editing PNG is awkward for diagrams, I am doing a quick
ASCII diagram; can an SVG version be sent out?):

   +--------------------------+
   |        Messages          |
   | +------+                 |
   | |      |    SOAP ext.    |
   | | A  P |       SOAP      |
   +-| p  r |-----------------+
     | p  o |
     | l  t |
     | i  o |
     |      |
     |  - - +------------------+
     |       Transport         |
     |                         |
     +-------------------------+

or:

     +------+ +----------------+
     |      | |   Messages     |
     |      | |   SOAP ext.    |
     | A  P | |      SOAP      |
     | p  r | +----------------+
     | p  o |
     | l  t |
     | i  o |
     |      |
     |  - - +------------------+
     |       Transport         |
     |                         |
     +-------------------------+

That depends on how message is defined. Considering the current
glossary definition, I think that the first one applies.

Hmmm... that makes showing an XML technologies box even more tricky.
Maybe we should just color-code the boxes on whether they are based on
XML or not, and use gradients where appropriate.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Monday, 7 April 2003 06:19:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:17 GMT