Difference between revisions of "Talk:AWG Domain rationale discussion"
Dzonatas Sol (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
[[User:Zha Ewry|-Zha]] | [[User:Zha Ewry|-Zha]] | ||
The examples you gave are specific to a web domain and are an implementational detail. What I listed are components of the architectural domain. [[User:Dzonatas Sol|Dzonatas Sol]] 15:44, 17 October 2007 (PDT) | * The examples you gave are specific to a web domain and are an implementational detail. What I listed are components of the architectural domain. [[User:Dzonatas Sol|Dzonatas Sol]] 15:44, 17 October 2007 (PDT) | ||
I refer you to the definition provided. An enumeration of words does not form a terribly useful domain, and a flat list of phrases sharing no common characteristics other than the fact that they are a collection of concepts and phrases found in the overall discussion of the architecture doesn't seem terribly useful. | I refer you to the definition provided. An enumeration of words does not form a terribly useful domain, and a flat list of phrases sharing no common characteristics other than the fact that they are a collection of concepts and phrases found in the overall discussion of the architecture doesn't seem terribly useful. | ||
I, for example can certainly believe that there will be a concept of identity within the architecture. There may even be a highly specific form of identity which we will define as what we mean when we, in detailed flows, say things like "The user passes his or her ''identity'' to the client, which passes it to the authentication service." What I have a much harder time imagining is that there will be a component, or resource which is identity, which might be usefully grouped into a domain. [[User:Zha Ewry|-Zha]] 7:00 pm PDT 17 October 2007 | I, for example can certainly believe that there will be a concept of identity within the architecture. There may even be a highly specific form of identity which we will define as what we mean when we, in detailed flows, say things like "The user passes his or her ''identity'' to the client, which passes it to the authentication service." What I have a much harder time imagining is that there will be a component, or resource which is identity, which might be usefully grouped into a domain. [[User:Zha Ewry|-Zha]] 7:00 pm PDT 17 October 2007 | ||
* The question to ask: What are the components of the Architectural Standards Working Group? There are two sides to that answer because there is the entire design and the entire model. So far, the ASWG has started from a basic model but no design. The ASWG needs to first design its own workflow based on prior model requirements and expand that model further. | |||
* When you say, "grouped into a domain" and "user passes his or her identity" that sounds like implementation details. My view is different. I look at "identity" as a component of the Architectural Standards Working Group as a piece to design the product, but I also understand your view that is "identity" as a piece of data being networked by the product. [[User:Dzonatas Sol|Dzonatas Sol]] 08:14, 18 October 2007 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 07:14, 18 October 2007
I have a hard time with the current listed set of domains. A set of components is, not at all a domain. A domain might be "all Linden Labs trusted servers which use lightweight capabilities within the LL firewall to manage trust" a domain might be "A set of asset, simulation and region servers which share a single trust domain"
- The examples you gave are specific to a web domain and are an implementational detail. What I listed are components of the architectural domain. Dzonatas Sol 15:44, 17 October 2007 (PDT)
I refer you to the definition provided. An enumeration of words does not form a terribly useful domain, and a flat list of phrases sharing no common characteristics other than the fact that they are a collection of concepts and phrases found in the overall discussion of the architecture doesn't seem terribly useful.
I, for example can certainly believe that there will be a concept of identity within the architecture. There may even be a highly specific form of identity which we will define as what we mean when we, in detailed flows, say things like "The user passes his or her identity to the client, which passes it to the authentication service." What I have a much harder time imagining is that there will be a component, or resource which is identity, which might be usefully grouped into a domain. -Zha 7:00 pm PDT 17 October 2007
- The question to ask: What are the components of the Architectural Standards Working Group? There are two sides to that answer because there is the entire design and the entire model. So far, the ASWG has started from a basic model but no design. The ASWG needs to first design its own workflow based on prior model requirements and expand that model further.
- When you say, "grouped into a domain" and "user passes his or her identity" that sounds like implementation details. My view is different. I look at "identity" as a component of the Architectural Standards Working Group as a piece to design the product, but I also understand your view that is "identity" as a piece of data being networked by the product. Dzonatas Sol 08:14, 18 October 2007 (PDT)