RE: Where do we find software architecture?

Well, there's no point in continuing this discussion, methinks we agree to
disagree.  You want to look only at running code to describe web services
architecture.  I observe that you don't apply that criteria to web
architecture.  I want to look at soap and wsdl specs and running code as a
starting point for web service architecture.  You believe there is no use in
looking at specs - despite how many times you will quote specs like rfc
2396, TAG documents, or Roy's thesis when calling web architecture fouls.

So I think you are using two different criteria for relating specs to
architecture, and you don't see the contradiction.  But the private
discussions I've had indicate that most people think there is useful
architecture principles in soap and wsdl.  Let's move on.  I suggested we
simply call for a straw poll or vote, I can live with whatever the result
is.  Or maybe Mike and DaveH should just decide.

BTW, I see no contradiction in either of our positions with the glossary
definition of 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."  Taking architecture from
SOAP and WSDL, like the processing model of soap 1.2, the transport binding
framework, the message exchange patterns, etc. all fit in the glossary
definition of architecture.

I don't think you want to be casting stones about being out of touch with
industry on architecture definitions or any other topic, it's unreasonable
and can easily backfire.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 6:39 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Where do we find software architecture?
>
>
>
> Dave,
>
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2002 at 03:50:28PM -0700, David Orchard wrote:
> > By your argument, we can't talk about architectures until they are
> > deployed - which means extensible architectures like SOAP
> 1.2 can't be
> > talked about.
>
> Your definition of architecture is unlike anything I'm familiar with.
> Architecture can only be extracted from running code.  You don't need
> lots.  The architecture could be extracted from Google's SOAP API, for
> example.  The Web had an architecture the moment Tim ran his first Web
> server and browser.  That Roy waited until 2000 to write it down isn't
> relevant.  What's relevant is that there are running Web services out
> there, and that you have to look there in order to find the
> architecture.
>
> > My concern is that you are trying to set the bar too high for newer
> > specifications like SOAP 1.2.  Given that you don't think
> there is an
> > architecture in SOAP or WSDL [1], I understand why you are
> taking this tact.
>
> I'm not setting a bar at all.  I'm just want us to observe running Web
> services, and write down what we see in the architecture document.
>
> > I find your quote from Roy baffling.  I think I understand
> Roy's quote.  In
> > the editors version of the ws-arch document that I'm
> working on, I suggested
> > following the identifiers/formats/protocols style of the
> TAG doc in our doc.
> > I *really* want the ws arch document to naturally flow from
> the TAG document
> > (my own personal success factor and requirement).
>
> Once again, your odd definition of architecture has me
> baffled.  The TAG
> architecture document is documenting architectural
> *principles*.  We are
> tasked with defining a reference architecture, as Mike just
> so eloquently
> described.  These are *very* different things.
>
> >  From this, we can define
> > additional formats and protocols for newer web services
> standards, like
> > security.  So I want to talk about data elements and I'm
> prepared to propose
> > or talk about them in whatever forum is expeditious and
> appropriate.  I fail
> > to find logic in why you quoted Roy's thesis as I do not
> believe I am
> > suggesting anything that contradicts it.
>
> You contradict it when you suggest that we can harvest an architecture
> without looking at running code.
>
> > Like I've said before, I would rather focus on writing and
> talking about web
> > services architecture documents rather than wrangling over
> process of
> > getting to those documents.  I have volunteered to
> contribute to such
> > writing efforts.  Perhaps we should terminate this
> conversation and simply
> > ask for a vote in the group.
>
> I'm not talking about process, I'm talking about definitions.  The
> definition of "architecture" in our glossary, and my definition, are
> at odds with yours.  I suggest we address this, since, as an editor of
> the architecture document, it's important that you be in synch with
> the group and the industry at large.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
>
>

Received on Thursday, 25 July 2002 00:44:38 UTC