Re: Yet another attempt to fix D-AC004

Hey,

On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 03:50:09PM -0400, michael.mahan@nokia.com wrote:
> Hi Mark,
> 
> Issue 1.
> 
> >Ah, I think we have a terminology issue here.
> 
> >I've been using the term "component" in the context of an architecture.
> >From our glossary;
> 
> >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."
> 
> >I'm talking about that kind of component; like a Web client, proxy,
> >gateway, server, tunnel, etc..
> 
> My reading of the above glossary definition of architecture does not 
> technically limit it to the list you suggest, although I agree that it 
> is implied. Specifically, it can be read that components are not necessarily
> externally visible. 
>
> To me, it is important to be able to discuss all the functional entities 
> of the WS architecture, externally visible (whatever that really means) or
> not, as components. Hence security, privacy, reliability, etc. must be described 
> in terms of components and relationships. 
>
> Hence, loose-coupling applies to this broader description of components 
> whereas early/late-binding is a subset in the domain of the service discovery 
> components of the WS architecture. 

Ok, so how about this ...

We use "component" to refer to software components like proxies,
gateways, etc..  And we use the term "facilities" (any better ideas?) to
refer to security, privacy, etc..

I personally prefer keeping the word "component" reserved for software
components, because in the field of software architecture (in which I
include our work), it is so reserved.

> Issue 2.
> 
> >> AR00X.6 support both early and late client binding to web services.
> 
> >Sure.  This should probably be related to D-AR003.6 in some manner,
> >since it not only suggests "support", it says that we should define
> >how late binding occurs.
> 
> >http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/06/wd-wsa-reqs-20020605.html#ar003.6
> 
> >Not sure how best to do that though.
> 
> We could move D-AR003.6 to this CSF. I think this fits better here than
> under 'extensibility'. What do you think?

Good idea!

> Issue 4.
> 
> >> If you agree that describing the relationship between architectural components
> >> is in scope, do you have a better suggestion.
> 
> >How about just "The relationships between components must be well described"?
> 
> I was hoping to get alittle deeper than that. Maybe we can discuss this on the
> telecon tomorrow.

That would be fine.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com

Received on Wednesday, 26 June 2002 22:03:22 UTC