Referee 1 ****************************************************************

Referee Recommendations.
Accept, provided changes suggested are made

E:Referee Comments(For Author and Editor)

This paper described a framework for web-based simulation using a Java front-end. The
framework is based on classic three-tier architecture.

The framework described in this paper is quite standard in terms of using Web browser to
serve as a front-end to computational resources. It would be more interesting if the
authors will discuss technical issues such as security, resources discovery in seamless
manner, or generic design difficulties specifically encountered by simulation software,
e.g., visualization and steering. However, this paper will be an extra source of
information to the community.

F:Presentation Changes

Figures do not have labels.


Referee 2 ****************************************************************


C. Referee Recommendations.
    accepted provided changes suggested are made


E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)
This paper presents the framework details for a system which enable
simulations to be run across the web. The motivation for such work is
clear: accessibility of specialized software and hardware from a variety
of platforms. It would seem that the system described here, WebSimMicro,
gives access to only one simulator, for microelectronic devices, and the
claim is made (p3 para 2) that the framework could be easily extended to
other simulation packages.

There has been much related work. Page 4 lists many such systems, and I
am aware of at least one more (GoWeb, at GMD-First, to be found under
the home page of Nikola Serbedzija). It is very important that the
reader is made completely aware of the advantages that the WebSimMicro
approach has over the earlier work. Page 5 is not adequate in this
regard. At the end of section three, four desirable qualities are
ascribed to WebSimMicro, but one needs to be more convincing. What does
it mean to say that "the end user's attention [is moved] away from the
the syntax ... to the physical design"? Could you give an example here?
Ease of use is always a desirable trait, but how is it measured? can you
show that your system is easier to sue than some other? What are the
criteria? The paper needs an evaluation section, which can be pointed to
from section 2.

Page 6 starts off with an exposition of the standard three tier
architecture model, and you should acknowledge that this is a standard
model, and not your own invention. Clearly, the components you select
for the tiers are tailored to your simulation, but you could make more
of the genericity of the design here. It did seem to me to be quite
good. The example starting on page 7 needs to be emphasized more, and
you need a screen dump of the presentation tier at least, if not of some
monitor screen showing how things are happening behind the scenes. The
sequence diagram is useful, bu not everyone can read these, so screens
are helpful.

I found section 3.2 problematic, because it is written in the future
tense - "components with operations like" "this tier can achieve" "the
UI update can be made the responsibility". It is better to be definite
about what you have done.

One of the more significant parts of the work is the Engine Container
and the design of the different engines. (pages 12-14) However, the
requirements specified here are too vague for a reader to believe
without an example. Specifically, consider the description of the
Interactive Engine. "It is required that such applications must provide
an API for manipulating the command interpreter" etc. This is quite a
tall order, and it is necessary to illustrate what such an API would
look like, its size and complexity. In IEEE Software May.June 1998 which
was a special issue on web-based access to programs, there is a
description of a geo package for accessing GIS software. Is yours
similar? You should give a listing of it's main components/methods.

As mentioned above, I do not think the reader is convinced that your
framework is significantly different or better than any that has gone
before. You need a comparison table (always a good idea) or some metrics
for evaluation. The design and use of such frameworks is no longer
breakthrough science, so you need to be very clear as to what
contribution you are making to the field.

F: Presentation Changes

The structure of the paper is fine. There are some minor grammar errors
which should be picked up by a careful read of the paper by an English
speaker. The references are clear and complete enough. the authors may
want to consider the GoWeb work mentioned above.



Referee 3 ****************************************************************

This paper describes the design of a Java based framework
for simulations on the web. The paper essentially provides
a narrative description of high level design aspects. The
overall design structure is sound, but not very novel
or interesting -- the 3-tier architecture is fairly
common, and the components in each layer are standard.
The authors also do not provide any interesting descriptions
of issues like implementation challenges, performance and
security that might potentially transform the paper from
a routine design description to one that is of appeal
and value to practitioners. The paper may be more
appropriate for a workshop or user group meeting on
web-based simulation tools; I regret that based on
its content, I cannot recommend acceptance for publication
in Concurrency: Practice and Experience.

Referee 4 ****************************************************************

C521: A Java Extension Framework for Web-based Simulation
Tao Tang and Chu R . Wie
State University of New York at Buffalo, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Bonner Hall,
Buffalo, NY 14260
Email: wie@eng.buffalo.edu>
Received 22 July 2001

C522: WebSimMicro: Web-based Simulation of Microelectronic Devices
Tao Tang and Chu R. Wie
State University of New York at Buffalo, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Bonner Hall,
Buffalo, NY 14260
Email: wie@eng.buffalo.edu>
Received 22 July 2001

Now, after a careful reading of the paper # C521 (required to the Editor) I am strongly
convinced that the two papers belong to the same medal and, accordingly, I strongly
suggest the Editor to ask to the authors to merge them in just one paper.
The first paper focuses on the architectural design of a Java-based framework used to
build web-based simulation applications incorporating arbitrary legacy (simulation)
applications i n various domains by using configurable and extensible interfaces.
The second paper discusses the architecture of WebSimMicro, a web-based simulator of
microelectronics devices and, its integration using the framework mentioned before.

I think that the suggested merging might be very beneficial, producing a very interesting
paper that, as for other milestone's projects on this topic (e.g.: WebFow, PUNCH, etc.)
could represent an interesting reading for people interested in the usage of Java and Web
technologies to build easy-of-use problem solving environments.


E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)

Reviewing the paper # C521, I have found it interesting from the technical viewpoint and,
undoubtedly,  "in line" with the Journal "targets". Unfortunately, I cannot say the same
thing from the readability viewpoint. In order to extend the paper's appeal toward a
broader range of readers, in my opinion, the presentation style needs to be "strong ly"
enhanced.
I tried to read the paper many times and, at the end of each reading, the sensation was
always the same: the paper was full of technicalities, but something was missing. For
example, the API's descriptions in the parts 3.1, 3.2.1, etc. seem left "in the vacuum"
without a clear description of their context.
Under those condition s, I was initially oriented to suggest the rejection of the paper
#C251, but I have found a possible solution to above mentioned doubts by reading at
http://aspen.csit.fsu.edu/CandCPandE/index.html (Articles under Consideration for Journal)
.
In fact, I noted that the same authors sent (the same day...) to the Journal the following
papers that, seem to me as the "two faces of the same medal".

C521: A Java Extension Framework for Web-based Simulation
Tao Tang and Chu R. Wie
State University of New York at Buffalo, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Bonner Hall,
Buffalo, NY 14260
Email: wie@eng.buffalo.edu>
Received 22 July 2001

C522: WebSimMicro: Web-based Simu lation of Microelectronic Devices
Tao Tang and Chu R. Wie
State University of New York at Buffalo, Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Bonner Hall,
Buffalo, NY 14260
Email: wie@eng.buffalo.edu>
Received 22 July 2001

Now, after a careful reading of the paper # C521 (required to the Editor) I am strongly
convinced that the two papers belong to the same medal and, accordingly, I strongly
suggest the Editor to ask to the authors to merge them in just one paper.
The first paper focuses on the architectural design of a Java-based framework used to
build web-based simulation applications incorporating arbitrary legacy (simulation)
applications in various domains by using configurable and extensible interfaces.
The second paper discusses the architecture of WebSimMicro, a web-based simulator of
microelectro nics devices and, its integration using the framework mentioned before.

I think that the suggested merging might be very beneficial, producing a very interesting
paper that, as for other milestone's projects on this topic (e.g.: WebFow, PUNCH, etc.)
could represent an interesting reading for people interested in the usage of Java and Web
technologies to build easy-of-use problem solving environments.

Suggestion: other useful references on this topic:

Baraglia R., Laforenza D., Laganą A.
A Web-based Metacomputing Pr oblem-Solving Environment for Complex Applications
Proceedings of GRID 2000-IEEE/ACM International Workshop on Grid Computing, December,
2000, Bangalore, India
Lecture Notes in Computer Science 1971, Springer, pp.111-122

Baraglia R., Laforenza D.
Metay: A Web-based Metacomputing Problem-Solving Environment for building Complex
Applications
ERCIM NEWS, N. 45, April 2001

Referee 5 ****************************************************************

E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)
The paper is a description of a framework for a Web-based client-server application to
handle simulation tools in a generic way.

The description of the framework lacks technical depth. Throughout the complete paper it
is never clear which the components look technically. Moreover, without a concrete example
of a simulation system the methodology stays abstract and is not really comprehensible.
The author seemed to have implemented one, the WebSimMicro which is submitted to another
journal. I suggest to combine both articles, elsewhere the proposed framework stays too
abstract.

The contribution proposes, to my opinion, a minor contribution in the sense that web-based
simulations are proposed in a more generic way than related work do it. However, the
applied methodology : three-tier architecture, is not original. It is common use in Web-
databases to use such an architecture (see for instance a special session in ACM Sigmod
Record, last year). Moreover with respect to the scope of the journal, no new distribution
paradigma compared to the client-server is proposed. Although at the end of the article
the authors propose a truly distributed approach, the idea stays too vague.

The discussion section is, to my opinion, without a new content and could be deleted
without any problem. Did you see a component-based framework which is not generic ?
To enumerate only a few keywords used : flexibility, scalability, productivity,
efficiency, reusability, extensibility …

The article is written in a comprehensive and clear language, however, as I tried to point
out above, without more technical and practical insides into the framework, it is not
acceptable to me.

F: Presentation Changes

See above in E. More technical insights, concrete implementation, and most importantly
innovative aspects in the field of distributed computing.