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

RE: Diagram - Deployed Element

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 16:32:20 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624A8B@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

But an agent is a physically existing thing, isn't it?  The diagram seems to say that they are distinct and related only by the fact that they are owned by a legal entity.  This just plain confuses the heck out of me.  Are you saying that Deployed Element belongs ABOVE Agent, and that an Agent IS A Deployed Element (as might be other things that are not agents)?  If so, and this sounds like what you are saying, then I don't quite know where Manageable Element comes in, since some Agents are manageable and others are not.  An Agent "Might Be" manageable?  Or two things under Agent, Manageable Agents and Unruly Agents?  That souncs right to me.

That's all independent of the Service/Agent issue, which is obviously coupled in.

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 4:18 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Diagram - Deployed Element


I believe the intent of deployed element is of a physically (at least 
on a computer or in real life) existing thing. I originally called this 
a deployed resource.

Deployed elements include services, also agents, also descriptions. 
They also include application frameworks, firewalls, etc. etc., but 
these are out of scope.

Essentially, you can only manage something that exists. Its also true 
that, for mgt purposes, what the managed thing does is kind of 
unimportant - management is at the meta-level: you want to have 
descriptions of the managed resource, and you want to be able to turn 
it off (say), but interacting with a service as a service is different 
to interacting with the same computational resource from a life-cycle 
perspective.

It is certainly true that not all services and/or agents need to be 
managed. I think the diagram could use correction about that.

Frank

On Thursday, February 20, 2003, at 01:48  PM, Cutler, Roger 
(RogerCutler) wrote:

> Sorry to stutter here -- it seems to me that this diagram will make a
> LOT more sense if Deployed Elements are contained in Services.
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent:   Thursday, February 20, 2003 3:47 PM
> To:     'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> Subject:        Diagram - Deployed Element
>
> First - Great diagram, in general.  Really useful.
>
> Second - It looks to me like there is something wrong with the way
> "deployed element" shows up in this diagram.  It seems to appear on 
> the same level of, and independent of, an agent -- which doesn't look 
> right to me.  Moreover, it appears that Services are always deployed 
> as manageable elements, which I also don't think is right.  (Some 
> might think it desirable, but it is not required).  Ditto Agent -- 
> somehow it seems like there are non-service agents that are deployed 
> as manageable elements, but not deployed services, which is totally 
> confusing to me.   Moreover, it appears that Deployed Elements have 
> nothing to do with Services.  Again, doesn't look right at all to me, 
> unless I am totally misunderstanding what an element is.
>
Received on Thursday, 20 February 2003 17:33:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT