Application Providers and Technical Components

[Antony]

The Meta-Model diagrams suggest an Application Provider is implemented by a Technical Component. The Depends on Technology slot for an Application Provider or Composite Application Provider only allows linking to a Technical Composite. Is this intentional? Is this to support multiple Technical Components. This would seem to need the definition of a Technical Component Architecture first. Is it assumed there will always be a one to many relationship from Application Provider to Technical Component?

Regards

Antony

[jonathan.carter]

Hi Antony,

This is intentional. However, note that every artefact in the meta model has a definition and if appropriate an architecture. e.g. the technical architecture of an application provider has a definition and an architecture that describes the contents and relationships of that architecture.

To define the logical technology architecture of an Application Provider (which defines the technology components - that is classes of technology - that are required by the Application Provider) you define a Technology Composite. This can be a 'standard build' such as 'Web Application Technology Architecture' or a specific architecture for that application, e.g. 'My Application Technology Architecture'. To describe this Technology Composite in more detail, define the architecture of the Composite. This could be as simple as a single component or a complex architecture that uses many components (including other Technology Composites).

Hope this helps to clarify the approach.

Jonathan

[ulfl]

It seems overly complicated to create a Technology Composite, which contains only a single Technology Component. Why not directly allow the use of Technology Components?

[jonathan.carter]

That's a fair point but I think that a technology architecture of an application that only contains a single component is a special case rather than the norm.

We could extend the meta model so that you can create either but then a modeller has to choose between a 'simple' Technology Component or a Technology Composite that contains one or more Components. For consistency, we've currently gone for the approach where the Application's Technology Architecture is defined by a Technology Composite (regardless of how many components are captured in there). It also means that you can start by just capturing the immediately important (or interesting) Components but come back later to add more detail and more Components to the Composite without having to re-factor anything.

Having said all that, we're always keen to hear what everyone else thinks. Let us know

Jonathan

[Antony]

Thank you for the explanation. I agree in most cases there would be more than one technical component and this approach allows for an initial definition that can easily be extended. My question came from reviewing the meta-model diagrams to clarify my understanding of the use of each class and its relationships. A revised diagram to reflect the relationship of an application provider is to a technology composite may help.

Regards

Antony

[jonathan.carter]

Thanks for pointing this out, Antony. We'll get that sorted out.

The textual documentation for the meta model (this links to the Application Layer documentation) is more accurate and is often worth having a look out to clarify any concerns and to get more detail.

Jonathan