Talk:Technology stack

Proposed merge with Solution stack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Don't merge, reconsidering and will repropose Sn1per ^(t)(c) 02:46, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Software stack (solution stack) is a type of technology stack. Since technology stacks can consist of a mix of software and hardware (and software stacks on their own aren't so much more important than other types of technology stacks that they should have a separate article) I propose that the solution stack be merged into technology stack. Cheers, Sn1per ^(t)(c) 02:20, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Solution stack" is obviously not a valid term, as it's meaningless and not at all common. It seems to me that next, one needs to establish whether technology stack is even a valid term. Because is there such a thing as a hardware stack? It's widely known that "software stack" is a valid and inherently meaningful term, so should it be called that? The only way i could think of a reason to expand out to the more general phrase "technology stack" is if there's some requisite, nonspecific hardware concept like telecom, which complements software. But usually that refers to a service or a product, which isn't quite a stack; for example, a linux+webserver+wifi+AP hardware and software stack is aka "a router". But "technology stack" isn't wrong and I would want to see some common usage examples or explanation. — Smuckola (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good first step would be to get rid of this vague article by merging with solution stack, which at the moment covers software stacks in general, which is basically what this article covers. Then a discussion can be opened over whether or not to move it to software stack. Note Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive611#Move_reversal_request_for_Solution_stack_.2F_Software_stack Sn1per ^(t)(c) 03:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge into Solution stack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Don't merge, redirect to solution stack Sn1per ^(t)(c) 20:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article pretty much covers the same topic as solution stack, but is a lot more vague and has a less appropriate name. Sn1per ^(t)(c) 02:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me that layered models such as the OSI model (which TCP/IP sort of falls into) is quite different. A solution stack consists of very separate, wholly different, technologies while what is described here is a theoretical segregation of responsibilities for implementing a "layered protocol". I have worked on teams that have implemented such protocols and it is often that layers are routines in a single program (executable). The protocol facilitates communications between systems but in no way is it what the solution stack article describes (i.e., everything needed to support an application). Arbalest Mike (talk) 03:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. You are a lot more experienced on this topic, so I'll defer to you on the topical difference between this and Solution stack. I suppose on that point, the merge should be closed. What about the name of this article? The term "Technology stack" seems to be a little fuzzy; although it is "officially" different from solution stack, it seems like others have, like me, mixed it up with solution stack/software stack and used the terms interchangeably. Is there a better name we can use for this article? Cheers, Sn1per ^(t)(c) 04:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than a merge, I would suggest making this redirect to the Solution Stack page. Another reason to redirect is that this article is inaccurate as written. Following the link to the OSI model, you will see that it is described as a "conceptual model... without regard to technology...". Next, TCP/IP is not a model at all. It is an implementation. Neither are consistent with what a solution stack is described as, in the corresponding page. The W3C stuff is a different concept as well and if it shows up in the solution stack article I would be inclined to remove it. Arbalest Mike (talk) 16:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. I'll close this merge and set up the redirect. Cheers, Sn1per ^(t)(c) 20:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.