Jess: SW Arch, Week 4

Chapter 3: Dissecting Web 2.0 Examples

This chapter compared Web 1.0 companies and technologies with Web 2.0 companies and technologies and developed design patterns to distinguish them. I’ll go over a couple of comparisons and the patterns that they both use.

Ofoto and Flickr
Ofoto let users upload JPEG images to that others could view them. It also let users create photo albums and purchase prints online. The core model was static publishing. Flickr was created with more of the online community in mind, allowing users to tag or comment on each other’s images, and for developers to incorporate Flickr into their own applications.

Patterns:
• Software as a Service (SaaS)
Participation-Collaboration
• Mashup
• Rich User Experience
• The Synchronized Web
• Collaborative Tagging
• Declarative Living and Tag Gardening
• Persistent Rights Management

Akamai and BitTorrent
Both Akamai and BitTorrent solve the problem of distributing large volumes of information across huge networks, however, their approaches are very different. Akamai’s approach was to sell customers a distributed content-caching service so customers could host content which would be pulled through the Akamai network. This made it so that a single host wouldn’t have to supply bandwidth-intensive content to a potentially global audience. Instead, Akamai would supply the bandwidth.

BitTorrent also distributes large volumes of information without the original distributor incurring all the costs associated with hardware, hosting, and bandwidth. Instead of one distributor servicing each recipient, the recipients also supply data to newer recipients.

Patterns:
• Service-Oriented Architecture
• Software as a Service
• Participation-Collaboration
• The Synchronized Web

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.