[OASIS Issue Tracker] (OSLCCORE-53) Does a ServiceProvider have one Service per oslc:domain value, or does it reflect the server's desired container structure.

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-53?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=61616#comment-61616 ] 

James Amsden commented on OSLCCORE-53:
--------------------------------------

1. What I'm saying is that the LDPC hierarchy for v3 incremental, Link header based discovery could be identical to the ServiceProviderCatalog, ServiceProvider and Service resources, and that the Services LDPC's members could be the resources the service creates. In this case, service.creationFactory.creation === Service.

2. I was proposing that we keep Service as an LDPC in order to support the unified v2 and v3 LDPC hierarchy described in 1. 

in any case, servers that implement Server as an LDPC would be free to set its members to anything they want, possibly a place to put the customized metadata, or anything. Having Service be an LDPC gives servers more flexibility, not less. The LDPC has members, but we're not constraining what those members are, or their cardinality (could be none).


> Does a ServiceProvider have one Service per oslc:domain value, or does it reflect the server's desired container structure.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: OSLCCORE-53
>                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/OSLCCORE-53
>             Project: OASIS OSLC Lifecycle Integration Core (OSLC Core) TC
>          Issue Type: Bug
>            Reporter: Martin Pain
>            Assignee: James Amsden
>
> In OSLCCORE-23 we agreed that a Service resource should be an LDPC, but didn't state what its members were. My reading of that ticket's proposal is that the members are defined by the domain.
> In recent emails, there has been a discussion about what the members of a Service should be. My latest comments that triggered me to raise this ticket:
> According to OSLCCORE-23, we agreed that "Service is the point at which Domain specifications specify their specific service capabilities." - which suggests the tie between domains and Service resources. Of course, it doesn't have to be an OSLC-defined domain, but in my opinion it must be a value of the oslc:domain property on the Service. And that it is unreasonable to expect clients to be able to work with two Service resources with the same oslc:domain value, unless explicitly permitted by that domain.
> So I think we have a question to answer, which probably requires its own ticket: Do we keep the one-to-one relationship between Service resources and oslc:domain values from v2 (within the context of a single SP, and if that understanding of v2 is correct), or do we redefine it and suggest/require that a Service is one-to-one with an LDPC (if not exactly the same resource) in the server's desired organisation of containers?
> The benefit of the former is that clients have fewer options to present to users, and that v3 servers are more likely to work with v2 clients (although that could do with verification). The benefit of the latter is that the server's organisation of containers is exposed in the OSLC data, but this comes at the cost of complexity for the clients.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)