- From: Timothy N. Jones <tim@crossweave.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 11:00:22 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Austin, Daniel" <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Hi Tim, > Just a few comments on your write-up on goal 8. I don't believe that > we should use the words "complete" or "self-contained". I don't think that > either of these applies to an achitecture in general, and especially not to > one that intends to apply to an unknown problem domain such as Web Services. > We are not in a position to be able to determine completeness, and in fact I > believe that we cannot and should not attempt to design the architecture > with this idea in mind, but that we should explicitly design it to be an > open architecture that provides sufficient flexibility to allow for the > addition of new technologies and services as yet unknown. The terms I chose for this could be misleading, and I would welcome suggestions for better ones. I too think that the architecture should be open and extensible with future technologies. My point was that all technologies, once identified as relevant to web services infrastructure, should have a place in the architecture. For example, if transactions requires reliable messaging, and we agree that transactions has a place in the architecture (i.e., we can draw it on "the diagram"), then reliable messaging needs to have a place in the architecture too, else we have a hole. The architecture may need to evolve if new types of technolgies (not new instances, but new types) come along in the future, but I believe that it should encompass the union of all common/foundation/infrastructure web service related technolgies at any given time. > One issue regarding this goal: this goal talks about the definition > of the architecture, i.e. the reference architecture that we define. This > reference architecture should be consistent and coherent. This applies to > both the reference architecture itself and the document that contains its > definition. > To be honest, I don't understand your defintiions of consistency and > coherence. Further, I don't see what OOP design patterns or simplicity have > to do with either, as these issues seem to me to be orthogonal. Here is a > loosely worded definition of what I mean when I say "consistent and > coherent". I didn't actually attempt to define consistency or coherence, but perhaps that should be the first step to define the common ground. The OOAD metrics I was referring to are mainly related to simplicity which I feel aids coherency, but I may be confused. These metrics judge a design based on things like the number of relationships between objects and the distribution of control in a system; there are many of these in the book by Riel [1]. > To be consistent means that the architecture does not do the same or > similar things in mutually incompatible ways, that it is not > self-contradictory. If a service is invoked to provide a stock quote using > an XQL query in one place, it should do so everywhere throughout the system > in the same manner. There should not be wildly different means to achieve > the same ends in the architecture. I believe this says basically the same thing as my test of consistency (below). I would be fine with either wording. > To be coherent means that the architectural components work together > to form a logical whole. The dictionary does a good job with this word: > coherent: > a) Marked by an orderly, logical, and aesthetically consistent relation of > parts > b)Composed of mutually dependent parts; making a logical whole; consistent; > as, a coherent plan, argument, or discourse. My shot at coherency (below) was that the architecture should be compatible with common systems-building techniques (design patterns) -- designers shouldn't have to learn a new way of thinking to work with the architecture. My wording was more abstract than I'd have liked, but the definition above seems even more so and I am not sure how to write a CSF based on it that is not similarly abstract (it seems that CSFs should be fairly concrete if they are to have any teeth, so to speak). > Hopefully this clarifies things. > Regards, > D- Tim [1] http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/020163385X/qid=1017081836/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_67_1/103-1416385-8862261 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Timothy N. Jones [mailto:tim@crossweave.com] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002 12:10 PM > > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > > Subject: D-AG0008: "is coherent and consistent in its definition" > > > > > > Goal 8 of the web services architecture is stated as follows: > > > > "is coherent and consistent in its definition" > > > > Following Daniel's lead, we have two questions to ask of this goal: > > > > 1. Is the proposed text above sufficiently clear, concise and > > intelligible > > to serve its purpose? > > > > 2. What are the critical success factors that we need to > > achieve this goal? > > > > The only issue I have regarding the wording is whether we should add > > something to the effect that the architecture shall be "complete" or > > "self-contained" -- when we look at the use cases for web > > services, any > > technologies required to implement them should be part of the > > architecture. > > > > I believe that simplicity is a part of coherency, but there > > is a separate > > goal (D-AG0005) for that, so I don't think it needs further > > elaboration > > here. > > > > Regarding CSFs, I believe that a visualization in the form of a two > > dimensional diagram of the architectural components and the > > relationships > > between them is a top-level CSF. This would preferably be a simple > > "stack"-type picture that could be understood by a wide > > audience, rather > > than something more formal such as a UML class diagram. > > > > The only quantitative metrics that come to mind are from the > > OOAD world and > > focus on simplicity, so I don't think they belong in this > > goal. I have > > mentioned one qualitative metric for completeness above. > > Other questions > > that come to mind are: > > > > "Does the architecture support the concepts used in commonly > > accepted design > > patterns?" [coherency] > > > > "Is there a small number (preferably one) way that a given set of > > architecural components may be combined to achieve a particular > > functionality." [consistency] > > > > Please share any comments regarding the wording of this goal > > and appropriate > > CSFs. > > > > Cheers, > > Tim > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 25 March 2002 14:01:02 UTC