[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [oslc-core] Discovery: Using URLs to web UIs in OSLC configuration (was: Initial discovery (was: OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities, Creation Factories & location of Dialogs))
Hi Martin, See comments inline > From: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com> > To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > Cc: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > Date: 01/22/2015 05:46 AM > Subject: [oslc-core] Discovery: Using URLs to web UIs in OSLC configuration > (was: Initial discovery (was: OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities, Creation > Factories & location of Dialogs)) > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Going back to a thread from late last year... > > Topic: "Using URLs to web UIs in OSLC configuration" > > In short: In every OSLC (v3+) server, users shouldn't have to search the > config pages & documentation to find the URL to enter into OSLC clients to > connect to that server - it should be programatically discoverable from > whatever URLs the user has available. > I agree, we should be very clear on how one can discovery what the thing is they have in hand (via a URL) and how to discover things of interest it is related to. > I'll avoid talking about solutions for now, but I want to bring up again, > and attempt to clarify, the problem/story that I mentioned in the email > below in December. > > Two stories: > > 1. Project-scoped > > The user has a web-based OSLC-enabled defect tracking system, which contains > multiple "projects". They also have an OSLC-enabled test tool (desktop app) > which they want to configure to raise defects in the defect tracking system > when a test fails. They open the configuration of the test tool, and it asks > for a URL for the defect tracking system. They already have the defect > tracking system open in a browser (viewing a page in a specific project), so > they copy the URL from the browser's address bar into the configuration of > the test tool. The test tool uses that link to find a container on the > defect tracking system (for the project that the webpage was open at) that > accepts defect resources being created. If it finds multiple such containers > it asks the user which one to use (possibly using a selection dialog for > this, if such a capability is standardised and available). It then stores > the URL for that container in the test tool's project. > > In short: using a URL for a web UI page in a particular project (or some > other non-server-wide scope) of the server to programatically navigate & > discover the Url for the desired container. > I might argue that this approach to configuring an integration may not be desired. Here are some reasons: only project admins configure integrations (though they could use this approach), browsers often hide URLs for the current page and configuring to a another tools is not done very often, and therefore doesn't need to be streamlined too much. Having said that, I understand what you are saying. It would be ideal to start with any URL and find other key concepts. > 2. Server-scoped > > The same user then opens another project in the test tool. They want to > associate this test tool project with a different defect tracking system > project on the same server. They've already pasted a URL to a page on the > server in to the tool previously (story 1 above), so they don't want to do > it again, they want the tool to have remembered the URL pasted before (at > least to make it available when configuring the test tool project - not > using it until the user explicitly asks it to). However, this time the user > wants to navigate "up" out of that defect tracking system project to select > a different project, and then find a container in that new project the same > way as before. > > In short: using a URL for a web UI page in a particular project of the > server to programatically navigate to find other parent or sibling > resources/containers on the server. Similar comments to previous one. I would think that the admin would want to search on through some catalog of "projects I'm authorized to access and supply bug tracking capability". So it could be a container of "bug" containers, that can be filtered. Basically saying the story slightly differently. User wants to link testing project to some bug tracking service. They select a "add bug tracking" button and presented with a list of options, which include: previously used ones, commonly used ones, authorized ones, text search, etc. Selecting one, then they save (which basically does a Patch add of a membership triple to a container). > > In addition to these stories, other concerns are: > - Ideally the user would be able to do this without the people implementing > the server having to think too much about enabling this use case (chances > are: they won't, based on experience of existing tools) > - I've come across people unwilling to do content negotiation to serve both > RDF and HTML on a Url that was originally intended to be part of the web UI > (e.g. not wanting to rely on browsers' Accept headers being correct, > especially older versions of IE, and making it hard to browse the RDF by > pasting the URL into the browser). So it would be good to have an > alternative, e.g. Link headers. > > > Possible solutions include: > A. HEAD/OPTIONS with a Link header to a container for the current page's > scope (to navigate up, that container would either have to have a link to > its parent or a "root" container on the server, or support querying to find > a contain which contains the container it found). Sounds reasonable. Perhaps we could even doing something general purpose like the usage of *rel="describedby"* Link headers. As a hint of "go over here for more details". Though I'd argue, what is really a "root" container?. Let's say all these "root" containers were contained in another "catalog" of containers, that defined an organization or system. I suppose we could just say the "primary parent" or "contained-in". It probably makes sense to move some of this additional config data to something that is used just for this purpose, such as just on the OPTIONS response. Take your example from before. How many times would someone connect tools together? Perhaps once every 6 months? We don't want to have a header being passed back on every response just to satisfy this one case. This is why I think OPTIONS makes sense. > B. HEAD/OPTIONS with both a Link header to a container for the current > page's scope, PLUS a Link header to a "root" container on the server. See above > C. Content negotiation for current page's scope's container, either with a > link to parent/root container or a Link header to a server "root" conatiner. > 9This wouldn't work very well to make it available on every page). > > To make this work with EVERY web UI URL, we would have to make it a "best > practise" to expose this on every page. A compromise might be to only > suggest it's exposed on the server home page and any other page that could > reasonably map to a container (e.g. a project's home page). I think there are easy ways to do this, though it depends heavily on the technology being used and how the code is structured. Servlet filters or some other mechanism could globally add headers. Though OPTIONS would make it easier to implement. If an application used OPTIONS frequently, it could have an impact, but should be minimal. > But I'm not too bothered about a particular solution, I'm more interested in > having this scenario supported - to improve the usability of OSLC tools. > > > Any thoughts on the stories, or on potential solutions? Good insights and think we are heading in a good direction. Thanks, Steve Speicher IBM Rational Software OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open-services.net > > Martin > > > <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 09/12/2014 13:54:15: > > > From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com> > > To: Martin P Pain/UK/IBM@IBMGB > > Cc: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > Date: 09/12/2014 14:05 > > Subject: [oslc-core] Re: Initial discovery (was: [oslc-core] OSLC & > > LDP: Query Capabilities, Creation Factories & location of Dialogs) > > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > Responses woven in... > > > > > From: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com> > > > To: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > Cc: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > Date: 12/04/2014 05:27 AM > > > Subject: Initial discovery (was: [oslc-core] OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities, > > > Creation Factories & location of Dialogs) > > > > > > This email is about how implementations (or instances thereof) first > > > interact with each other, concerning discovery of capabilities and > > resources. > > > > > > I've split this into three sections, but read it as one continuoustrain of > > > thought. I have other thoughts which I will send in separate e-mails. > > > > > > > > > "One URL" configuration: > > > ------------------------ > > > > > > Story: > > > As a user configuring an integration (e.g. system administrator or project > > > area administrator) > > > I want to configure the integration between two OSLC-enabled servers/ > > > applications with as few steps as possible (e.g. providing a single easily- > > > available URL, plus any security config) > > > In order to have the full integration between those two applications with > > > minimal effort and confusion. > > > > > > At the moment (in v2) OSLC does not seem to do anything to suggestwhat that > > > "one URL" should be. Something pointing to a oslc:ServiceProviderCatalog > > > might seem to be a good choice. However, most IBM implementations (including > > > mine) use the Jazz Root Services document [1]. I believe the main motivation > > > for this is that it is what the Jazz products require, which is probably > > > because they need the OAuth information and this gives them a > > place to find it. > > > > > In v2, it could be thought that the ServiceProvider (or > > ServiceProviderCatalog to find the SP) is that one 1 URL. > > I think of Jazz Root Services is provide additional triples into > > ServiceProviderCatalog (which is just a container for SPs). There > > is an open work item that is for making it fully a compliant SPC, it > > is so close. > > > > > Steve, in your proposal, I expect this "one URL" would point to a container, > > > which can contain other containers to an arbitrary depth to model the native > > > hierarchy of the server. > > > > > Right, this is basically what v2 has. > > > ... > > > > > > > > Using URLs to web UIs in OSLC configuration > > > ------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Another problem is getting hold of that "one URL". Users are generally only > > > aware of the web UI URLs. While it would be perfectly reasonable for any > > > given implementation to perform content negotiation on their web UI's > > > homepage's URL to provide an RDF representation of the server if an RDF > > > media type was requested, I have come across people unwilling to do that. > > > (e.g. it means you can't stick that URL in a browser to see what RDF is > > > being returned [although of course there are ways around that] - which makes > > > exploration of the interface harder, which is how most people learn). > > > > > These users willing to add response headers or support the OPTIONS > > verb on that URL? Just some other alternatives to sending back RDF on a GET. > > > > > Story: > > > As a user configuring an integration > > > When asked for a URL to another OSLC implementation, I want to provide the > > > URL to the web UI of the other implementation (as that is the URL I know) > > > In order to set up the integration without having to search the docs for > > > what URL to use. > > > (Extension: "I want to provide the URL for whatever entrypoint/homepage/ > > > dashboard I use most in the other tool") > > > > > > We could achieve this by defining a Link header that points to the root > > > container for that server, which OSLC servers should provide on: the home > > > page, and any other page that could reasonably be used as an entrypoint. Or > > > on every page, if they really want to be helpful. > > > > > We'd have to define what a root container is but yes, we could have > > a URL for a place to find configuration/setup information or other methods. > > > > We used "oslc:details" predicate in v2 to define such a web ui URL > > from oslc:ServiceProvider > > > > > But what about getting the URL to a particular "leaf" container > > (e.g. project area): > > > > > > Story: > > > As a user configuring an integration > > > When asked for a URL to a specific project within another OSLC server (e.g. > > > in a configuration file, such as for a headless operation such as > > an ant script) > > > Then I want to be able to provide the URL to the web UI for that project > > > In order to set up the integration without having to search the docs (or the > > > UI) for what URL to use. > > > > > > > See "oslc:details" from SP from before or conneg. > > > > > We could achieve this by having a separate link header that points to the > > > container for 'the current scope'. "Project" pages (or "tenant" pages, or > > > whatever your level of modularity/scope is) would then include both a link > > > to the root container and a link to their own container. > > > When a URL is given to an interactive process, it could perform make an HTTP > > > HEAD request on it. If it only has a root container link, it uses that. If > > > it has both a root container link and a 'current scope' container, it asks > > > the user which one to use. if it has neither, it performs a GET to see if > > > the body contains a container (although that should have been visible from > > > the HEAD too) or to see if it is a V2 catalog, service provider or service > > > (if v2 compatible). > > > > > > > I guess I'm not following what the problem is here with v2. > > > > - Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://jazz.net/wiki/bin/view/Main/ > > RootServicesSpec#Root_Services_Documents > > > > > > > > > <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> wrote on 02/12/2014 21:40:39: > > > > > > > From: Steve K Speicher <sspeiche@us.ibm.com> > > > > To: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > Date: 02/12/2014 21:40 > > > > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities, Creation > > > > Factories & location of Dialogs > > > > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > > > I took the liberty to sketch in more detail what I meant from some > > > > of my comments below. I've put in a webpage how we can build upon > > > > the LDP Container concept many of the things we depended on in 2.0. > > > > Requires some new vocabulary as sketched but pretty simple and > > > > minimal, perhaps even cleanly layers on queryCapability/creationFactory. > > > > > > > > https://wiki.oasis-open.org/oslc-core/Discovery > > > > > > > > Feedback welcome, we can review at upcoming meeting. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Steve Speicher > > > > IBM Rational Software > > > > OSLC - Lifecycle integration inspired by the web -> http://open- > > services.net > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Steve K Speicher/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > > > > To: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc- > > > > core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > Date: 12/02/2014 08:58 AM > > > > Subject: Re: [oslc-core] OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities, > > > > Creation Factories & location of Dialogs > > > > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > Thanks for sharing. This is timely, as I getting ready to outline > > > > this in more detail. I have done some work internally and on my > > > > todo list for this month to publish it out. I'll comment directly > > > > on some of the points you've raised below. > > > > > > > > - Steve > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Martin P Pain <martinpain@uk.ibm.com> > > > > > To: "OASIS OSLC Core TC Discussion List" <oslc- > > core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > Date: 12/02/2014 04:55 AM > > > > > Subject: [oslc-core] OSLC & LDP: Query Capabilities, Creation > > Factories & > > > > > location of Dialogs > > > > > Sent by: <oslc-core@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > > > > > > As we move OSLC 3 to be based on LDP, I presume Query Capabilities and > > > > > Creation Factories will be replaced by capabilities from LDP. > > > > > > > > > > As I'm starting to draft the Automation v3 spec, I've come to the place > > > > > where I need to be able to refer to the definition of the > > headless query/ > > > > > selection and creation capabilities. > > > > > > > > I believe we don't need to define much of this in domain specs, you > > > > just need to leverage some basic ways that LDP and Core expose > > > > capabilities and clients can discover it. > > > > > > > > > This also raises the question: are we keeping the existing > > > > > oslc:ServiceProvider and oslc:Service resources? I see no > > reason not to. > > > > From a pure 3.0 spec perspective, no. I see no reason to require these. > > > > From a compatibility with 2.0 specs, then yes of course we'd need to. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So my expectation of how this would go is: > > > > > > > > > > 1. An oslc:ServiceProvider: > > > > > > > > > > a) which is possibly discoverable from an > > > > oslc:ServiceProviderCatalog > > > > > b) would contain one or more oslc:Service resources > > > > We could just have LDP Containers. Perhaps you could outline the > > > > specific needs of what a oslc:ServiceProvider should have, so a > > > > client/server could satisfy a certain. Typically the needs are that > > > > a client needs to interaction with a set of services that operate on > > > > types of resources, such a container. > > > > > > > > > 2. These oslc:Service resources: > > > > > > > > > > a) would each identify which OSLC domain they operate in > > > > using their > > > > > oslc:usage property > > > > > > > > > > i) (I believe this can also exist at the > > > > oslc:ServiceProvider level) > > > > > > > > > > b) Link to LDP containers for each of the resource types > > > > they work with > > > > > > > > > > i) (They may have more than one container for > > eachresource > > > > > type, e.g. > > > > > Automation Requests ready for execution, and > > > > Automation Request > > > > > templates) > > > > > > > > Essentially, you can think of what a "oslc:Service" (and everything > > > > it contains) as an LDP:Container, annotated to provide the needs we > > > > had before (query, dialogs, types, shapes, usage) > > > > > > > > > c) Maybe, they would still contain the links to the > > > > Creation & Selection > > > > > dialogs (i.e. in the same place as v2) > > > > Yes > > > > > > > > Something like: > > > > > > > > <> a ldp:DirectContainer; > > > > oslc:creationDialog <#newDialog> ; > > > > oslc:resourceType auto:AutomationRequest. > > > > > > > > <#newDialog> a oslc:Dialog; > > > > oslc:dialog <http://example.org/ui/newDialog>; > > > > dcterms:title "New Automation Request". > > > > > > > > > d) (for providers wanting to be compatible with v2:) would > > > > contain v2 > > > > > Creation Factories and Query Capabilities > > > > > > > > Correct, we should keep the 3.0 specs "pure" and have a separate > > > > "note" on v2 compatibility. Imagine what the 3.0 spec would look > > > > like to someone who knows nothing about v2 or 2 years from now, > > > > should they know anything about v2? > > > > > > > > There has been some things started and actively being worked now: > > > > > > > > Core 3.0: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/wsvn/ > > > > oslc-core/specs/compat.html > > > > ChangeMgmt 3.0: http://tools.oasis-open.org/version-control/browse/ > > > > wsvn/oslc-ccm/trunk/supporting-docs/change-mgt-compatibility.html > > > > > > > > > 3. Those LDP containers: > > > > > > > > > > a) would provide LDP's querying mechanism. (Is there such > > > > a thing? I > > > > > can't find it.) replacing v2's Query Capabilities > > > > > > > > No, it is being discussed for LDP "2.0". We could simply do > > > > something like this to advertise v2 query support on LDP Containers > > > > > > > > <> a ldp:DirectContainer ; > > > > oslc:queryType <http://open-services.net/ns/core#OSLCQuerySyntax >. > > > > > > > > or something > > > > > > > > > > > > > b) where appropriate, would provide the creation > > > > capability (replacing > > > > > v2's Creation Factories) > > > > > > > > We could call a LDP Container a creation factory, that is all it is. > > > > Though I'm not sure if we need to carry that v2 terminology > > forward in 3.0. > > > > > > > > > c) Maybe, it might be appropriate to link from the > > container to the > > > > > creation & selection dialogs for the resources in that > > > > container. So > > > > > (for dialogs that are specific to a single LDP container - > > > > not all will > > > > > be) all the operations for that container are linked from > > > > the container > > > > > itself. However, compatibility with v2 would require that > > > > the dialogs > > > > > are linked from the oslc:Service. > > > > > > > > Not sure I'm hearing anything I disagree with but not sure I fully > > > > get the point. I think it would be helpful if we worked an example, > > > > side-by-side. > > > > The way to think of it, starting with a Container...build up from > > > > there like I mentioned before: dialogs, query, etc. > > > > > > > > > In particular, right now I need to know: > > > > > - Is 3a correct, or will we be keeping Query Capabilities? > > > > > > > > For at least 1st half of 2015, I think Query Capability will remain > > > > a thing only on open-services.net. It is there, we can use it as > > > > needed. We'll need to decide what we want to do with this longer term. > > > > > > > > > I think 3c is also an important point to decide on. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Martin > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > > > > number 741598. > > > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, > > Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > > > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with > > number 741598. > > > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]