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

RE: Submission from MTF for F2F

From: Narahari, Sateesh <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 10:57:36 -0700
Message-ID: <33692E0AA56A034EB5C0103AB7EC8CC00DA6CD@denmails8.jdedwards.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

In an architecture, we should specify the non-functionals such as
manageability as precisely as possible. I am not sure if specifying
non-functionals of architecture is beyond the scope of architecture.

Treating non-functionals of the architecture seperate from architecture is a
recipe for failure, IMO. Non-functionals provide the necessary constraints
and qualities for the architecture being defined.

Best Regards,

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2003 10:48 AM
To: Heather Kreger; www-ws-arch@w3.org; Hugo Haas; Champion, Mike
Cc: Eckert, Zulah Karen; hao.he@thomson.com.au; Husband, Yin-Leng; Mark
Potts; igor.sedukhin@ca.com
Subject: RE: Submission from MTF for F2F

It seems to me that section 3.2 goes beyond the scope of architecture
and gets into a specific specification.  It looks like a fine
specification to me, but I think that there is a real problem including
it in the formal, normative work product of the WG.  One reason is that
potential stakeholders could reasonably say that they were not invited
to participate -- that is, if they had an interest in the spec but not
the architecture the charter of the WG would not have led them to
participate.  I do not think that this is a trivial concern.

Again, I don't think that there is anything wrong with the spec, and in
fact I think it is really good work.  Perhaps a solution would be to
separate that part of it into a Note which would not be normative.   If,
as seems quite likely to me, there is in fact nobody waiting in the
wings champing at the bit to introduce their own spec such a note would,
in practice, probably have the same effect as including the material in
the architecture.  If, contrary to expectations, a competing spec DOES
appear, then this would be confirmation that putting it in the
architecture document would have been the wrong thing to do. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 28, 2003 11:38 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: Eckert, Zulah Karen; hao.he@thomson.com.au; Husband, Yin-Leng; Mark
Potts; igor.sedukhin@ca.com
Subject: Submission from MTF for F2F

The Management Task Force would like to submit this draft for
consideration by the WSArch working group for inclusion into the Web
Services Architecture Draft. We would like to review this draft during
the MTF  time slot on Friday at the F2F. We would also like to discuss
the inclusion of the LifeCycle submission from several F2F's ago, and a
potential charter for this Task Force.

We appreciate any comments by email in the mean time.

This draft details only the manageability properties of a Web services
endpoint (as defined in the glossary).

(See attached file: W3c.Mtf.WSInstance.20030229.htm)

I'm attaching it directly because its small, html, with no diagrams,
please don't make me go through the archive :-).

Heather Kreger
STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies Author
of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems" kreger@us.ibm.com
919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 13:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:05 UTC