Re: [soa-rm] [issue:structure] draft 07, sect 2, line 201, Figure 2-1

[Duane Nickull <dnickull@adobe.com>]

No offense taken.  Honesty is always welcome and my feelings are not hurt.

;-)

D

Rex Brooks wrote:

> No offense, Duane,
>
> But I am still happier with Greg's latest version today. I think that 
> the relationships need to be explicit, and if we use a stack model, I 
> would prefer to see contract subsumed under policy, and application 
> interface left out entirely along with semantics, as much as I would 
> prefer to see it to clearly identify how ubiquitous it is. However it 
> is not clearly a layer unto itself and it does span the stack.
>
> Ciao,
> Rex
>
> At 7:32 PM -0700 5/19/05, Duane Nickull wrote:
>
>> I got inspired to try a few new things with a hybrid of the stack and 
>> the mind map.
>>
>> There are a few for your perusal.
>>
>> CoreRM 2 is my favorite - we can just leave out semantics in the 
>> diagram since they are ubiquitous and state in text that semantics 
>> are a core component required to make SOA work. This is very common 
>> with things that are omnipresent in architectural diagrams.
>> Please ignore the interface at the bottom.  It is probably not a good 
>> idea.
>>
>> CoreRM3 is a hybrid that uses the stack convention with embedded 
>> elements.  Semantics are specifically called out as a key aspect of 
>> service description.
>>
>> Core RM 4 is also not bad - I placed semantics as a layer overlapping 
>> the specific items it affects. Again - ignore the lower red box.
>>
>> Comments?
>>
>>
>> Duane
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:CoreRM2.png (PNGf/«IC») (00067FD5)
>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:CoreRM4.png (PNGf/«IC») (00067FD6)
>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:CoreRM3.png (PNGf/«IC») (00067FD7)
>
>
>