RE: [wsn] Multiple endpoints in IRP?

["Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>]

"Providing" might not be the best word as this requirement could be fulfilled outside WSDM, but WSDM needs to make sure there is such a mechanism it can rely on. The mechanism doesn't have to be specified in WSDM if there is another standard group that does it.

 

Look at slide 6 of the presentation I gave during the last WSRF F2F of requirements from WSDM: "Access to aggregations of manageable resources, including invoking operations on several resources in one operation"

 

As we discussed at the F2F, ServiceGroup can be a base for this, but would require some improvements (such as being able to support invoking operations on all the members).

 

Regards,

 

William

---

From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 5:22 AM
To: Vambenepe, William N
Cc: David Hull; wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsn] Multiple endpoints in IRP?

*WSDM* is providing a "collection" 
mechanism? Is this related to WSRF's Service Group? 

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 
444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of 
Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

"Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com> 08/06/2004 03:18 AM

To:        "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>         cc:        Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <wsn@lists.oasis-open.org>         Subject:        RE: [wsn] Multiple endpoints in IRP?

Yes, it is an accepted requirement of the WSDM TC to provide 
a
"collection" mechanism.

William  

-----Original 
Message-----
From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 
August 05, 2004 8:45 PM
To: Vambenepe, William N
Cc: Steve Graham; 
wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsn] Multiple endpoints in 
IRP?

Yes, I now realize I misread the original statement.

However, 
I'm still curious whether the WSRF subgroup will be exploring
means of 
multiple addressing.

Vambenepe, William N wrote:

>(with my TC 
member hat on, not my chair hat)
>
>The statement you pointed out is 
really just a reinforcement of the 
>rules of the IRP. And, as Steve says, 
it doesn't imply any capability 
>to address WS-Resources as groups. Or 
did I misunderstand your 
question

>David?
>
>William
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: 
Steve Graham [mailto:sggraham@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 
1:43 PM
>To: David Hull
>Cc: 
wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [wsn] Multiple endpoints in 
IRP?
>
>
>
>hi David: 
>I would think that one of 
our WSDM colleagues could comment further.
>But from my read of the 
statement you quoted from WSDM MUWS, it was 
>simply observing that a 
manageability endpoint (eg a Web service
>endpoint) may be the front end 
for multiple resources.  Therefore the 
>IRP must be used to identify 
any single one of those resources.  I 
>didn't get the read that 
there was any capability implied to access a 
>group of more than one 
resource with a single EPR.  This is not 
>possible from what I 
understand of 
WS-Addressing.
>
>sgg
>
>++++++++
>Steve 
Graham
>(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
>STSM, On Demand 
Architecture
>Member, IBM Academy of Technology
><Soli Deo 
Gloria/>
>++++++++
>
>
>
>
>   
              David Hull 
<dmh@tibco.com>
>
>08/05/2004 04:14 PM
>
>   
                      
>        To:       
 wsn@lists.oasis-open.org 
>        cc:   
      
>        Subject:     
   [wsn] Multiple endpoints in 
IRP?
>
>
>
>While reading through WSDM MUWS, I ran 
across this interesting
>statement:
>
>"If the manageability 
endpoint corresponds to a variable number (zero 
>or
>
>more) 
of manageable resources, then the WSRF Implied Resource Pattern 
>MUST be 
followed.  This means that the element(s) listed in the 
>ReferenceProperties of a WS-Resource qualified EPR must be included in 
>the header of messages sent to such manageability 
endpoints."
>
>This seems to imply a WS-Address with multiple 
ReferenceProperties 
>elements, one for each EPR.
>
>Does the 
IRP allow for multiple resources to be addressed as a group?  
>Does 
this have to be done via repeated ReferenceProperties elements, 
or

>could one give a predicate instead, or bake something magic into 
the 
>Address URI?
>
>I realize that the IRP is in a fluid 
state at the moment, but I'd be 
>interested to know current thinking. 
 Is this the sort of issue the 
>WSRP
>
>subgroup is 
trying to address?
>
>
>
>
> 
 
>