wsdm message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] cases on situation categories
- From: "Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
- To: "Thomas Studwell" <studwell@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 17:30:55 -0500
ok. so then if someone switches the wireless off on a
device and that is reflected in a configuration property change event then
should there be
A) one property change event
message with ConfigurationSituation indication
B) two property change event messages one with
ConfigurationSituation indication and another with ConnectSituation
indication
-- Igor
Sedukhin
..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631)
342-4325
..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749
Response below.
Thomas W. Studwell
Senior Technical Staff Member,
Autonomic Computing Architecture
IBM Software Group
C151/Bldg 500
4205
S Miami Blvd, Durham, NC 27703
(919) 254-7574 Fax: (919) 254-7628 Mobile:
(919) 619-1038
studwell@us.ibm.com
"What marks the mind of the
strategist is an intellectual elasticity or flexibility that enables him to come
up with realistic responses to changing conditions... In strategic thinking, one
first seeks a clear understanding of the particular character of each element of
a situation and then makes the fullest possible use of human brainpower to
restructure the elements in the most advantageous way." (Keniche Ohmae, The Mind
of the Strategist)
"Sedukhin, Igor S"
<Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
"Sedukhin, Igor S"
<Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
11/17/2004 04:31 PM |
|
Tom,
The two statements below contradict each other, don't
they. Or am I just not getting something here (which may entirely be the
case)... one says configuration change ->(may)-> ConnectSituation another
says configuration change
->(must)->ConfigurationSituation.
#1 [If the result of the configuration change
is the establishment of a new connection (and/or the loss of the previous one)
then these events are distinct and reported separately as
ConnectSituations]
#2 [It gets a configuration change it generates an event that has a
ConfigurationSituation. period. There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about
this.]
Or does this mean that there
may be two separate events generated for the same occurance of the configuration
property change?
<tws> yes. The configuration
change is a very distinct event, anything that happens after that is equally
unique and is evaluated on its own merit. Please excuse the poor phraseology in
my original note. I'll rephrase:
<p>The
configuration of a network device may or may not result in the ability to
connect to a different network but is always a
ConfigurationSituation<period></p>
<p>The establishment of a new connection (and/or the loss of the
previous one) is a distinct event and reported as a ConnectSituation regardless
of whether the connection was established due to external factors (like
negotiation with a remote modem) or due to configuration changes within the
resource.</p>
</tws>
-- Igor Sedukhin
..
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
--
(631) 342-4325 .. 1
CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749
From: Thomas Studwell [mailto:studwell@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday,
November 17, 2004 4:01 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S
Cc: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] cases on
situation categories
Responses below.
Thomas W. Studwell
Senior Technical
Staff Member, Autonomic Computing Architecture
IBM Software
Group
C151/Bldg 500
4205 S Miami Blvd, Durham, NC 27703
(919) 254-7574
Fax: (919) 254-7628 Mobile: (919) 619-1038
studwell@us.ibm.com
"What
marks the mind of the strategist is an intellectual elasticity or flexibility
that enables him to come up with realistic responses to changing conditions...
In strategic thinking, one first seeks a clear understanding of the particular
character of each element of a situation and then makes the fullest possible use
of human brainpower to restructure the elements in the most advantageous way."
(Keniche Ohmae, The Mind of the Strategist)
"Sedukhin, Igor S"
<Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
"Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
11/17/2004 02:46 PM |
|
Tom,
[If the result of the
configuration change is the establishment of a new connection (and/or the loss
of the previous one) then these events are distinct and reported separately as
ConnectSituations]
I'm not sure it is
reasonable to ask the implementation of a manageability endpoint to make such
distinction.
<tws>we are not asking a
manageability endpoint to distinguish anything. It gets a configuration change
it generates an event that has a ConfigurationSituation. period. There is
absolutely nothing ambiguous about this.</tws> I don't think it will be able to make it in many
cases.<tws> no
comment</tws>
This
requires very intimate understanding of what the configuration is about instead
of say, providing access to a configuration file of sorts. We're asking too much
from an implementer of the software shich supports manageeability of resources
using WSDM.<tws>I
disagree</tws>
Managers should have this knowledge and ability to
classify events, not resources. Again, we're doing a disservice to the
implementers of the WSDM standards who want their resources to be manageable in
order to make life for our management software easier. Is that
reasonable?<tws>Yes! Because, in the end,
we do ALL of this for our respective customers. The alternative is that we have
to swizzle our management products for every new widget that comes along and
guess what? Only widgets from the big guys that are going to sell MILLIONS will
get the swizzling resources because there are too d**n many to do otherwise. So
the little guy who might have a better piece of equipment will not be manageable
unless they copy the behavior of one of the big guys' piece of equipment. You
keep talking about interoperability but then you go out of your way to insure
that there are so many choices and variations with nothing defined or required
so that interoperability is almost impossible. As you say, we'll decide this
tomorrow.</tws>
-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
--
(631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749
From: Thomas
Studwell [mailto:studwell@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 12:44 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor
S
Cc:
wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsdm] cases on
situation categories
Igor, responses below. See my reply to Andrea's note as
well.
Thomas W. Studwell
Senior Technical Staff Member, Autonomic
Computing Architecture
IBM Software Group
C151/Bldg 500
4205 S Miami
Blvd, Durham, NC 27703
(919) 254-7574 Fax: (919) 254-7628 Mobile: (919)
619-1038
studwell@us.ibm.com
"What marks the mind of the strategist is
an intellectual elasticity or flexibility that enables him to come up with
realistic responses to changing conditions... In strategic thinking, one first
seeks a clear understanding of the particular character of each element of a
situation and then makes the fullest possible use of human brainpower to
restructure the elements in the most advantageous way." (Keniche Ohmae, The Mind
of the Strategist)
"Sedukhin, Igor S"
<Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
"Sedukhin, Igor S"
<Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
11/17/2004 11:39
AM |
|
#1 there is a property which is mydevice:ConnectedTo which indicates
the name of the network which the device is currently connected to e.g. Nothing,
GSM900, GSM1900, GSM 1800, 802.11g, 802.11.b etc. Such property is writeable and
could be set by the manager, so this is configuration. When a property change
event has to be generated by an manageability implementation for this device,
what would be the situation category to put in the event data: Configuration,
Connection or Report? What part of the WSDM spec will be sufficient to describe
the choice for an average developer?
<tws>As I point out in my note to
Andrea, the configuration of a network device may or may not result in the
ability to connect to a different network but is always a
ConfigurationSituation. If the result of the configuration change is the
establishment of a new connection (and/or the loss of the previous one) then
these events are distinct and reported separately as
ConnectSituations.</tws>
#2 there is an OperationalState property
and an event is generated for this property change when state transition from
DOWN:CRASHED to DOWN:STOPPED. What does one put as a situation category:
Availability, Stop or Report? In this case, availability did not change so it is
just a report, but the operational state certainly defines the availability.
DOWN:STOPPED is a state which indicates that resource is stopped, but its
availability didn't really change in case of this transition. However this would
not be true if transitioning from UP to DOWN:STOPPED, in that case the
availability changes. A) What in the spec would lead one to be crystal clear on
which situation category to pick in this case? B) What if the event generator
has no knowwledge of the actual resource state model? How would it decide
between UP->DOWN:STOPPED and DOWN:CRASHED->DOWN:STOPPED?
<tws>if
the states are substates of availability then one would always report these as
availabilitySituations since they all belong in that high level category. While
these are finer grained and warrant subcategorization the highest level category
is AvailabilitySituation. Even the precedent rule backs up this conclusion if
there was any uncertainty as to which category to use. ReportSituation would be
used only if the state did not belong to an operational state, such as Printer
Ink Low, for example.
One should not mistake the categorization as an
attempt to exactly replicate the situation - this can not be done canonically.
The purpose of the category is to provide a means of classifying sets of events
into a limited set of categories so a management function can quickly deal with
only situations within a narrow set of categories, ie, I only want to deal with
events that are configuration or availability related. I'll look at the detail
of the availability events to see if it is DOWN:CRASHED or
DOWN:STOPPED.</tws>
-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631)
342-4325 ..
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY
11749
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]