- From: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:08:13 -0400
- To: "Jeckle, Mario" <mario@jeckle.de>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>, <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
This would be much clearer and more useful without the protocol binding box extending into the SOAP area. Representing the major concepts clearly in a diagram should be the goal rather than including every detail in the diagram. We want to provide someone with a visual understanding of the architectural framework, meaning primarily what is included within it, and represent *to some extent* the relationships among the major pieces. Drawing the line between what is clear and general and specific and confusing is never easy, and no doubt we will have many opinions. I'd like to propose that we adopt this version of the diagram, without the protocol binding part, and move on. Regards, Eric -----Original Message----- From: Jeckle, Mario Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 8:04 AM To: Hugo Haas Cc: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org; Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk; RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com Subject: Re: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow's call) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 |I think that showing this makes the diagram confusing. I must confess I certainly did not my very best in fine tuning the diagram to be as intuitive as desirable for our WSA document. Therefore I repainted the middle part without changing the semantics. |I think I prefer my big background box in a different color. I still think having the colored box in the background may be desirable from the standpoint of emphasizing XML's role as base technology, but I think it is some kind of misleading in terms of interpreting Messaging, Description, and Aggregation as *part* of this base technology which is certainly not true and intended. Furthermore Security and Management both may have components which rely on XML, but both also deploy components which are completely independent of XML. This dichotomy would be hard to show ... |Hmmm... that makes showing an XML technologies box even more tricky. |Maybe we should just color-code the boxes on whether they are based on |XML or not, and use gradients where appropriate. Very good idea! I colored the diagram roughly (colors not not imply any semantics!) to make it more expressive. Also I integrated the influence of the underlying transport protocol to the messaging layer. The new diagram is attached. Cheers, Mario - -- Prof. Mario Jeckle University of Applied Sciences Furtwangen Dept. Business Applications of Computer Science W3C Representative of DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology URL: http://www.jeckle.de MailTo:mario@jeckle.de MailTo:jeckle@fh-furtwangen.de My public key: http://www.jeckle.de/marioJeckle.pub -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQE+krqR46tt20EwGqwRAmtjAKDVNf+1QKGDrmJxrM3Pn1x6Z4yZ8QCgm2hd FNi/kFGaCMI7hPsEf/QmNp0= =M1+h -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 11:08:54 UTC