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: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:17:49 -0400
Message-ID: <DCF6EF589A22A14F93DFB949FD8C4AB201074241@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "George Blanck" <gsblanck@nyc.rr.com>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

Yes (sorry for reading and responding a bit out of order here) I agree we are after definitional relationships rather than runtime relationships in this diagram.  Certainly that was my intention in the original draft.


-----Original Message-----
From: George Blanck [mailto:gsblanck@nyc.rr.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:08 AM
To: Anne Thomas Manes; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow's

A stack diagram implies a layered design pattern (think OSI stack), which
indicates that the layer on top calls the layer below to further the
process. It's a runtime processing diagram. It seems to me that we're trying
to convey too much information in this stack diagram. (combining runtime
processing with other things)

I believe that you are correct in concluding the multiple purposes behind
the WSA stack diagram but the statement about the use of a stack diagram as
runtime relationships is not necessarily true.  The key message behind the
WSA stack may not be "runtime" but "definitional" relationships.   There
will be several/many runtime variations of how these components are employed
but generally within these same structural relationships.  But I would start
with four boxes and the two pillars very much like Hugo's diagram:

Label for Box 1. "Processes" (rather than aggregation);  Content: "Examples:
Discovery, Aggregation, Choreography..."
Label for Box 2. "Services" (rather than description) Content: WSDL Service
Label for Box 3. "Messages"  include two boxes within Box 3a "SOAP
Extensions" Box 3b: "SOAP"
label for Box 4. "Transport" Content:  "HTTP, SMTP, JMS..."
Pillar A: "Security"
Pillar B: "Management"

Base technology of 1-3 is XML shown either as a backplane or just included
explicitly inside each box as "Base Technology: XML".  We do like to
"factor" XML out separately but I don't think it would offend if it where
just spelled out within each box but a back plane is more expressive.

I have included an example below.

George Blanck
x$0 Associates - System Architecture and Design
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 11:18:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:06 UTC