Event Services modifications

Bill, Toby,

I started looking at the implications of the discussion last week on the effect of the PUSH/PULL interaction pattern on the Event service specifications. Unfortunately I’m still a little unclear on how the services in the specification will get mapped to actual services in a WSDL that get implemented on a VTN or VEN. Obviously in the PULL model the interaction is initiated by the VEN which means that there is some sort of “Web Service” on the VTN that the VEN invokes to initiate the interaction even though the actual CRUD operations are from VTN to VEN. Likewise for the PUSH model the interaction is initiated by the VTN to invoke a Web Service on the VEN to perform the necessary CRUD operations.

In essence I think we should do the following:

(1) eliminate the EIRequestEvent from the table on line 872 (and all subsequent text that refers to it)

(2) Add something to the specification that makes it clear that the CRUD operations in the table on line 872 are available in either a PUSH or a PULL model of interaction.

It is item #2 that I am unclear how we should document. Do we need to create two separate services with identical CRUD operations or should we simply portray this in the table on line 872 with the understanding that when the WSDL’s are defined there will be a service implemented on the VTN that supports these operations for the PULL model and a service on the VEN that also supports these operations for the PUSH model.

Since for the most part the CRUD operations and payloads will be the same in either the PUSH or PULL model I’d like to leave some of these details out of the specification and leave it as an implementation detail that is reflected in the actual WSDL’s and schema’s, but am unclear what our conventions are in this regard.

Comments?

Thanks,

-ed koch

energyinterop message