- From: Damodaran, Suresh <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 14:28:56 -0500
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Wsa-public (E-mail)" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Mark, Given the current defn of Architecture in the glossary, I am fine with using "software component" (we will discuss this further in RTF) However, as I pointed out earlier, use of "software" as a qualifier does not seem right for WS component or WS architecture. What is accomplished by software can be accomplished by hardware tomorrow, may be using living cells day-after-tomorrow! Cheers, -Suresh Sterling Commerce -----Original Message----- From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 2:15 PM To: Damodaran, Suresh Cc: Wsa-public (E-mail) Subject: Re: [RTF] Glossary entry ""metric of Architectural component" Hi Suresh, On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 01:43:47PM -0500, Damodaran, Suresh wrote: > Mark, > > > >From glossary [2] I find: > > Architecture > The software architecture of a program or computing system is the structure > or structures of the system, which comprise software components, the > externally visible properties of those components, and the relationships > among them." > > => > Architecture component = (software) component of the (software) > architecture. Ok. But why would "software component" not suffice? "component" itself is quite overloaded, and really should be qualified. I'm just suggesting that we use the qualification that is already in our architecture definition, rather than define a new term. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 15:29:20 UTC