Re: [camp] creating things in CAMP

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Inlined below are my responses.


-Anish
--

On 03/20/2013 05:45 PM, Alex Heneveld wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> There was discussion today about POSTing to Templates to create
> instances.  There seem to be a few different ideas on how this would
> work.  I wanted to canvas opinion before opening an issue (if indeed we
> need one).
>
> I think we all agree you can POST a PDP to Platform to create an Assembly.

If you meant: you can POST a PDP to Platform to create an Assembly 
Template, then yes, else no. The spec currently says you can use this to 
create an AT.

> But:
>
> 0) Can you POST to an AssemblyTemplate (to create an Assembly) ?

Yes. The spec allows this.


> 1) Can you POST to an ApplicationComponentTemplate (to create an
> ApplicationComponent) ?

No.

> 2) Can you POST to a PlatformComponentTemplate (to create a
> PlatformComponent) ?

I think we should stay silent on it.
Platforms may want to manage their PCs and share PCs among ACs or create 
new ones for each application. OR they may allow admins to create PCs 
from PCTs. I don't think we need to specific.

> And finally:
>
> 3) Do we say (in the spec) what the result of such a POST is? (Could (1)
> return an Assembly ?)

We require the location URL of the newly created resource to be returned 
in the HTTP response header. I think we should allow a platform to 
return the Assembly resource but not require it.

> 4) If (1) and/or (2) is _permitted_ by the spec, is it permitted for a
> compliant implementation to refuse such requests (ie only support (0);
> or even to support only PDP-initiated deployments) ?
>
> My thinking had implicitly been that consumers would do (0) and *not*
> (1) or (2).  The AC's and PC's are created by the platform in response,
> and every instance is "owned" by an assembly.  And the PDP is a
> convenience for supplying potentially a bunch of ACT's, PCT's, and an
> AssemblyTemplate.
>
> My read now though is that (1) and (2) are permitted.  So you could post
> to an ACT and get an AC back, and if this ACT (say it was a WAR file)
> had a requirement for some PC (say something with a WAR_appserver
> capability), there would be a PC created (or perhaps re-used) and the
> WAR installed there.  All makes sense.  But could we end up with these
> things running without any Assembly ... and is that a problem?
>
> It would be very helpful to know what people are thinking here!
>
> Thanks
> Alex
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php