«

The term component architecture is widely used, its meaning is the
internal components, connectors and configurations. However, to me, it
seems a bit vague!

for example, what is the meaning of JavaBeans Architecture, does the
previous meaning still apply?

In my opinion, I believe that a component should have two kinds of
architectures,
- internal architecture: this reflects the internal components,
connectors, and configuration.
- external architecture: this indicates that the component should
conform to its interface. hence its interface has certain architecture,
this will be the component's external architecture.

so we could distinguish between components according to their external
architecture.

any opinion?

Aned <> wrote:
> In my opinion, I believe that a component should have two kinds of
> architectures,
> - internal architecture: this reflects the internal components,
> connectors, and configuration.
> - external architecture: this indicates that the component should
> conform to its interface. hence its interface has certain architecture,
> this will be the component's external architecture.
>
> so we could distinguish between components according to their external
> architecture.
>
> any opinion?

I might have an opinion, but I'm still trying to figure out what you
said.

Certainly design is hierarchical, in that each piece of the design at
the top level may be further designed. So at a given level, you might
identify a component and says that it has "internal" and "external"
design, by which you would mean the levels of design directly above and
below the existence of this component. Sometimes the word
"architecture" is used to apply to software design at the top level.
Sometimes it means other things, depending on to whom you are speaking.
Of course, the word "component" itself is rather ambiguous, too.

So, if you clarify your meaning, you might get more (and more useful)
responses.

--
www.designacourse.com
The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
MindIQ Corporation

I regard components as source code fragments with interface. So the
internal architecture of a component will be the sub-components, and
their communications. while the external architecture of a component is
its interface. In fact I distinguish between two types of interfaces.
- functional interface: this is responsible of acquiring and providing
services.
- architectural interface: , this is my interest actually, this is
responsible of allowing a component to be plugged automatically to a
certain architecture. for example, Applet has 4 methods that need to be
satisfied in order to be able to work under internet explorer. I'd
define the "architectural interface" as the interface that define the
life cycle methods of a component.

so, what I want to achieve is to use component interface(i.e.
architectural interface) to distinguish between components (i.e.
Classify components). I wonder if this kind of classification is
effective for reusing components?

Aned wrote:
> any opinion?

comp.lang.java.advocacy is the next door to the right. F'up set.

/Thomas
--
The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ:
ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/...g/java/gui/faq
http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv....java.gui.faq/

There are quite a lot plug-in architectures. You can certainly
classify them accordingly. But what do you mean by "reusing"?
Classification alone can not improve reusability.

-Shin

Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
> Aned wrote:
> > any opinion?
>
> comp.lang.java.advocacy is the next door to the right. F'up set.

Eh !? What are you talking about ? Aned's post wasn't any form of advocacy.

-- chris