RE: [wsdm] to singleton or not to singleton

["Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>]

 Fred, yes I agree with you.

So to sum it up we have three choices now

1) fix WSDM 0.5 spec and explain how to obtain EPRs before publishing it as a committee draft. For that we may have to define some operations or use WS-ServiceGroup or things like that. I don't want to dive in details here.

2) make a statement in the WSDM 0.5 spec that the valid silngeton pattern of WSRF applies here. Then publish as a committee draft.

3) Leave it as it is and publish a committee draft of a spec that cannot be used in an interoperable manner.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

-----Original Message-----
From: Fred Carter [mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 6:32 PM
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded

<FlameproofSuit state="on">

Folks,

I think that if we want to, we can all do a pretty good job of sabotaging any chance of getting things to work.  If that's the goal, so be it.

On the other hand, we can look at this as a chance to get something working -- not complete, not totally perfect, but basically functioning.

We know that for this interop, we will have one endpoint/provider endpoint.  Thus, the singleton case applies.  Why complicate things?

"...the WS-R? standard says..." :: It's not a standard yet.  Nor, for that matter, is WS-Addressing, insofar as I know (but that's a different problem), so I don't know what the required means for operation necessarily is at present.  It may be that "our feedback" is that the default cases for these should make things simpler, since that's what exists in the world today. (<tongueSlightlyInCheek>If I can define all current web services as compliant because they work with the default case (no info),  "just look at my installed base." </tongueSlightlyInCheek>)

(Remember, too, that the standard as it's currently defined has already undergone some change to make it work with tools, internally consistent, etc.  Let us not believe too strongly in its state of perfection...)


Personally, I'd like to see something, however miniscule, working.  If we can remove obstacles to getting basic interoperation between a manager & a manageability provider, so much the better.  Once something works, it's not hard to add new stuff til it breaks, and mung until done.  The interop scenario about which we're talking is "10 people in a room with a /community of laptops/."  If/when we stage a more public thing, we can deal with how this will evolve, what is the EPR format, how does real discovery work, what are the fault definitions, etc.


But that's just me...

/fred

</FlameproofSuit>

I'll now return you to your regularly scheduled entertainment...

--
Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc.

mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com
tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301

To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgroup.php.