occur, the type of error is indicated. Finally, the service availability is broken down for each 

mapping specified in the SLA.  

6.4 Strengths and Weaknesses of Framework 

Having previously highlighted the usefulness of the information that the framework can 

capture, the strengths and weaknesses of the framework will now be discussed.  

If one looks at the information that the report generated, monitoring at the server side could 

capture some of this information. For example, service usage statistics can be captured by 

the Service Provider, as can HTTP server errors. There are a number of reasons why the 

framework developed offers a significant benefit over server side monitoring. 

Server side monitoring cannot detect connection attempts to a service that fail due to 

network related problems. With client side monitoring, these failed connections are 

possible to detect and record. 

The level of detailed monitoring that is implemented by the proxy may be a 

significant overhead to do on the server side for all customers. It may also be 

unnecessary, as particular customers may not require such monitoring. The 

framework developed allows detailed monitoring for selected Customers. 

The Service Provider may not wish to implement monitoring for a small number of 

customers, or may not have the expertise to do so. This framework provides a means 

for the Service Provider to offer SLA monitoring, verification and feedback via a 

Third party (SLAVSP).  

The fact that a Third party can be approached to verify SLA compliance may be 

preferable to the Customer than depending on the Service Provider. 

Beside the advantages that the framework offers over server side monitoring, it is also a 

more flexible approach over other possible methods of client side monitoring. 

If a Service Provider were to offer client side monitoring of service performance 

and availability, a specific proxy would have to be installed by the Customer for 

a

a

e