wsdm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Manageability Capabilities Markup Proposal
- From: "Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>
- To: "Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>,"Heather Kreger" <kreger@us.ibm.com>, <wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:16:20 -0700
+1
(BTW I was +1 too on removing the UML but looks like this
was dismissed before I came back from holiday. Thanks Igor for trying to bring
consistency with the other Web services specs out there).
William
Since the list of capabilities may change at runtime, it
may make sense for this to be its own capability e.g. MyCapabilities... Also
while the resourceID is invariant against the manageable resource, and supported
capabilities are variants against the endpoints which expose them, there could
be a situation where two endpoints expose different capabilities for the same
resource, and so this does not sound like it belongs to
the Identity.
-- Igor
Sedukhin
..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631)
342-4325
..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749
Hi,
Based on my action item in the last few calls, here is a write up for
how we could add Manageability Capabilities compromise from our last call to
MUWS.
Please review and be prepared to discuss in Boston:
(See
attached file: CapabilitiesProposal.101904.doc)
Heather
Kreger
STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging
Technologies
Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable
Systems"
kreger@us.ibm.com
919-543-3211 (t/l 441)
cell:919-496-9572
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]