- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 20:32:37 -0400
- To: "Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
- Cc: "Wsa-public (E-mail)" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
On Tue, Jul 02, 2002 at 05:09:10PM -0500, Damodaran, Suresh wrote: > I don't think I understand your comment, Mark. > Hardware is used today to implement security techniques. See [1] for a > sample. > I will not speak for some of the companies involved who are well represented > in this WG, but I definitely think some components of Web Services > will be implemented in hardware. Oh, most definitely. I never meant to suggest otherwise. But "component" is not necessarily - using your term - an architectural component. For example, a random number generator (hardware or software based) would not be an architectural component in our architecture, but might be called a "component" by some people. > It is not appropriate to say that WSA is > a "software" architecture. Just "architecture" would suffice, IMO. Well, no, I'd disagree quite strongly with that. What we're designing is a software architecture. But some of its software components can be deployed within hardware. For example, dedicated hardware built to be a high performance proxy would be considered an architectural component by REST. > Having said this, I will let the h/w company representatives to pick up this > debate > if they chose - this is not something I want to spend time debating. I agree that there's not a lot of value in debating hardware versus software. My main objective here though, is to ensure two things; - that we reuse as much existing terminology in the field of software architecture as we reasonably can - that the terminology we do use, whether new or existing, is self- consistent 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 20:21:42 UTC