- From: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 11:17:49 -0400
- To: "George Blanck" <gsblanck@nyc.rr.com>, "Anne Thomas Manes" <anne@manes.net>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Yes (sorry for reading and responding a bit out of order here) I agree we are after definitional relationships rather than runtime relationships in this diagram. Certainly that was my intention in the original draft. Eric -----Original Message----- From: George Blanck [mailto:gsblanck@nyc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:08 AM To: Anne Thomas Manes; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: The stack diagram (was RE: Discussion topic for tomorrow's call <snip> A stack diagram implies a layered design pattern (think OSI stack), which indicates that the layer on top calls the layer below to further the process. It's a runtime processing diagram. It seems to me that we're trying to convey too much information in this stack diagram. (combining runtime processing with other things) </snip> I believe that you are correct in concluding the multiple purposes behind the WSA stack diagram but the statement about the use of a stack diagram as runtime relationships is not necessarily true. The key message behind the WSA stack may not be "runtime" but "definitional" relationships. There will be several/many runtime variations of how these components are employed but generally within these same structural relationships. But I would start with four boxes and the two pillars very much like Hugo's diagram: Label for Box 1. "Processes" (rather than aggregation); Content: "Examples: Discovery, Aggregation, Choreography..." Label for Box 2. "Services" (rather than description) Content: WSDL Service Descriptions Label for Box 3. "Messages" include two boxes within Box 3a "SOAP Extensions" Box 3b: "SOAP" label for Box 4. "Transport" Content: "HTTP, SMTP, JMS..." Pillar A: "Security" Pillar B: "Management" Base technology of 1-3 is XML shown either as a backplane or just included explicitly inside each box as "Base Technology: XML". We do like to "factor" XML out separately but I don't think it would offend if it where just spelled out within each box but a back plane is more expressive. I have included an example below. George Blanck gsblanck@nyc.rr.com x$0 Associates - System Architecture and Design
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 11:18:05 UTC