[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Terms being used in WSDM
"Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com> wrote on 05/27/2004 03:31:05 PM: > Generally, +1 to your proposal, John. > > 4. -> we need to add WS-Resource, not EPRs to the model. EPRs are > like URLs they are transient data. +1 to adding WS-Resource as opposed to EPRs to the model. > 4.a -> 1:1 is not possible as there are EPRs to WS-Resources that > are not WSDM manageable resources. For example subscription WS- > Resources as per WS-N are not necessarily WSDM manageable resources. Not sure I follow this. I don't think that the 1:1 statement was precluding the use of WS-Resource (EPRs) for things other then manageable resources but rather saying there is a 1-1 coorespondence of a manageable resource to a WS-Resource. > I could draft changes that the introduction of WS-Resources will > incur in our concept diagrams. > > -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com) > -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788 > > -----Original Message----- > From: John DeCarlo [mailto:jdecarlo@mitre.org] > Sent: Thursday, May 27, 2004 11:43 AM > To: Wsdm (E-mail) > Subject: [wsdm] Terms being used in WSDM > > Hello, > > As was made painfully clear in today's call, the WSDM TC is using > the term "endpoint" in at least two to four different ways. And > this is causing differences in perception of the Logical Model of MUWS. > > IMNSHO, this confusion is a "bad thing". > > While I am not a good diagram creator or modifier, I believe we need > to update the MUWS Logical Model to be clearer. > > Here is one proposal that will need to be shredded and reassembled > before we can get agreement, but it is a place to start. > > In particular, I think that William and Heather would argue that > there is no need any longer for the "manageability endpoint" in the > WSDL sense. They might argue that we only, perhaps, talk about the > "thing pointed to by the Manageability EPR that accepts SOAP > messages for exactly one Manageable Resource". I can't say I > understand the purpose, and personally find it too confusing. > Though it does simplify in the sense that you are always only > talking to Manageable Resources, never to Manageability Providers > (or their WSDL endpoints). > > Anyway, here is my proposal. > > PROPOSAL - When we use the term "endpoint", we only use it in the > WSDL sense. In all the WSDM specifications, including MUWS and MOWS. > > 1. This means that we can leave all our diagrams the same, except > that we have to add some things like EPRs or WS-Resources. > > 2. When we use the term "EPR", we say it is a reference to a > Manageable (Fred has a good point here that Managed is more correct > once you get to sending SOAP messages) Resource. And the content of > the EPR is defined in WS Addressing, maybe clarified in WS-RF. > > 3. Logically, to do something like GetResourceId, a Manageability > Consumer sends a properly formatted WSDM SOAP message, which > contains an EPR so that the Manageability Provider knows which > Manageable Resource is being referred to, to the Manageability > Endpoint specified in the WSDL. > 3.a. To remind people, this does not constrain the locus of > implementation at all. > 3.b. The Manageability Endpoint (being a WSDL Endpoint) may have > more than one Manageable Resource behind it. The EPR helps out here > one way or another according to best practices at the time. > 3.c. This begs the question of the singleton pattern. Does it > require an EPR or not? And if we support the *not* case, (which > helps implementors that haven't gotten around to WS-RF, WS Addressing, EPRs, > etc.) what are the implications? [Note: wiser heads than I have > started this singleton discussion already.] > > 4. The MUWS Concept Model should include EPRs. > > 4.a. One approach is to simply say there is a 1:1 mapping from > Manageable Resource to EPR. Then you have to mention that one "thing" > being managed may have multiple Manageable Resources/EPRs. This is > what the current MUWS Concept model shows. So we could add the EPR > to the Concept Model as well. In fact, doesn't the EPR allow the > Manageability > Endpoint in the Concept model to provide access to exactly one > Manageable Resource? > > 4.b. I don't think I like any other approaches, but will leave > this in here for a place holder. > > > 5. The MUWS Logical Model should address EPRs. > > 5.a. One option is to say that the Manageability Consumer "accesses > (and provides an EPR)" the Manageability Endpoint which "provides access > to the Manageable Resource indicated by the EPR". > > -- > T o m M a g u i r e STSM, On Demand Architecture Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 internet: tmaguire@us.ibm.com phone: 845.433.9401 (t/l 293-9401)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]