- From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 15:47:02 -0400
- To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
I was just positively acknowledging what I thought was your point - why we shouldn't introduce another entity into the 'triangle' (as I did in the 'diamond' diagram): >>The only problem with the triange with the peer to peer is >>that it makes it >>look like the pure requester is part of the scenario. I'd >>rather create a >>new triangle that we present separately with appropriate words. Point being that adding the peer entity into the diagram is confusing given that the diagram's intension is to describe the typical client- server scenario. I liked your other diagrams showing the p2p logical view and the intermediary logical view. From Nokia's perspective, having the p2p view is especially important. Mike >> >>Could you elaborate? >> >>I have sent Chris a word document with terminology,etc around >the first >>triangle (requesteer provider) and it includes a simple scenario. >>Are you recommending that we take that same scenario and >>develop a P2P and >>intermediary version? >> >>Somehow, it feels like you are implying more than that... >> >>Heather Kreger >>Web Services Lead Architect >>STSM, SWG Emerging Technology >>kreger@us.ibm.com >>919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 >> >> >>michael.mahan@nokia.com@w3.org on 09/24/2002 11:51:33 AM >> >>Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org >> >> >>To: Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <www-ws-arch@w3.org> >>cc: >>Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f >> >> >> >> >>If implicit in these logical views is a grounding to >>a single scenario, then I am in complete accord. >> >>Regards, Mike >> >> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: ext Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com] >>>Sent: September 23, 2002 05:37 PM >>>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org; Mahan Michael (NRC/Boston) >>>Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>How about we do the simple triangle first that 'seems' client >>>server. I >>>have sent words for the triangle to chris the editor to render in >>>acceptable xml. >>> >>>The only problem with the triange with the peer to peer is >>>that it makes it >>>look like the pure requester is part of the scenario. I'd >>>rather create a >>>new triangle that we present separately with appropriate words. >>> >>>So, first simple 'requester/provider' triangle (btw, we didn't >>>call them >>>client and server on purpose for exactly this reason) >>>Then we do a peer to peer >>>And then Rogers variation: >>>See attached: >>> >>>(See attached file: triangle.variations.ppt) >>> >>>ideas? >>> >>>Heather Kreger >>>Web Services Lead Architect >>>STSM, SWG Emerging Technology >>>kreger@us.ibm.com >>>919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 >>> >>> >>>michael.mahan@nokia.com@w3.org on 09/23/2002 03:28:58 PM >>> >>>Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org >>> >>> >>>To: <jones@research.att.com>, >>><RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, Heather >>> Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS >>>cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org> >>>Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f >>> >>> >>> >>>Here is a diagram which better demonstrates p2p graphically. >>> >>>BR, Mike >>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: ext jones@research.att.com [mailto:jones@research.att.com] >>>>Sent: September 23, 2002 01:57 PM >>>>To: RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com; jones@research.att.com; >>>>kreger@us.ibm.com >>>>Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >>>>Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>I think the compromise would be to base most of the initial >>discussion >>>>around the simple, unadorned triangle, laying out the range of >>>>possibilities >>>>in the text. The elaborated diagrams should either reflect >>a union of >>>>the abstractions and/or instantiations in the space or >should reflect >>>>a particular architectural style. I would be comfortable with >>>>the former >>>>if it doesn't make things too confusing, but would gladly accept the >>>>latter. >>>> >>>>--mark >>>> >>>>Mark A. Jones >>>>AT&T Labs >>>>Shannon Laboratory >>>>Room 2A-02 >>>>180 Park Ave. >>>>Florham Park, NJ 07932-0971 >>>> >>>>email: jones@research.att.com >>>>phone: (973) 360-8326 >>>> fax: (973) 236-6453 >>>> >>>> From RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com Mon Sep 23 13:45 EDT 2002 >>>> Delivered-To: jones@research.att.com >>>> X-Authentication-Warning: mail-pink.research.att.com: >>>>postfixfilter set sender to RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com using -f >>>> X-Server-Uuid: EE520CAE-7FCA-4D2A-A2DC-297BA4A725CC >>>> From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" >>>><RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> >>>> To: "'Mark Jones'" <jones@research.att.com>, >>>> "Heather Kreger" <kreger@us.ibm.com> >>>> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >>>> Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f >>>> Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:44:36 -0700 >>>> MIME-Version: 1.0 >>>> X-WSS-ID: 11918CF6275166-01-01 >>>> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>>> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20 >>>> >>>> I am still concerned that these diagrams seem visually >>>>to restrict web >>>> services to one messaging pattern. No matter what the >>>>words might say in >>>> the text, I think that having pictures that leave this >>>>impression would not >>>> be good. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Mark Jones [mailto:jones@research.att.com] >>>> Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:50 PM >>>> To: Heather Kreger >>>> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org >>>> Subject: Re: arch diagrams from the f2f >>>> >>>> >>>> Heather, >>>> >>>> I added 3 slides at the end of the set that you sent >>>>out. I rearranged >>>> and simplified the boxes and labels a bit. I also >>>>began to append >>>> concrete technology labels on some of the boxes. (I >>>>just made a cursory >>>> pass at this to see what it would look like. Feel free >>>>to further flesh >>>> it out.) At least while we are deciding on the correct >>>>set of boxes and >>>> labels, I think it helps to identify them. >>>> >>>> Mark Jones >>>> AT&T >>>> >>>> >>>> Heather Kreger wrote: >>>> >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >Hi folks, Here are the architecture diagrams I drafted >>>>up during our >>>> >meeting today. I have some words for some of this >>>>stuff that I will >>>> >align and send to the group as soon as >>>> >humanly possible. >>>> > >>>> >(See attached file: w3cStack.ppt) >>>> > >>>> >I have permission from IBM to submit both this stack >>>>and the origional >>>> >triangle to the W3C for inclusion into the architecture and >>>> >modification by the working group. >>>> > >>>> >Heather Kreger >>>> >Web Services Lead Architect >>>> >STSM, SWG Emerging Technology >>>> >kreger@us.ibm.com >>>> >919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> > >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 15:47:45 UTC