[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsdm] Terminology in the requirements
Muhamed, Here is a little background on this subject, since you are new to the TC. 1. The WSDM TC started in part by going through a briefing by co-Chair Heather Kreger (Shows up as E1014.ppt in the Reference Material Folder - it is older than 30 days, so it doesn't show up by default). In there, the notion as expressed on slide 31, "Managers always ‘talk’ to the resource while the actual Port may be any number of agents". Slide 28 shows the difference in the WSDL - basically the management port URI points to another system or application than the business port URI does for an agent situation. Note that for MUWS of manageable resources that are not Web Services, there would only be WSDL for management, making it very difficult, if not impossible to figure out if there is an agent involved. Also, since Web Services can be highly distributed, it is also less clear what even constitutes an agent. Suppose you have 7 processes in one WSEE that provide a particular Web Service Endpoint functionality. Now you add an 8th process dedicated to management. Is that 8th process just another part of the Endpoint or is it really an Agent? 2. The MPTC (now dissolved, previous to the WSDM) had a "Service Access Point" for the management interface. The WSMF submission specifically calls out a "managed object" that handles the management for the managed resource. As you point out, though, the only interesting aspect of this is if the "manager" or some other entity can make use of knowing whether there is an agent that is usefully distinct from the managed resource itself. There has also been discussion about aggregation of resources and whether knowing about a specialized type of agent/manager that is an "aggregator" would be useful. Interestingly, I found Heather's presentation very interesting to review. Aganagic, Muhamed wrote: > I am breaking my promise, but I have never implied that agents and > managed objects are in a 1-1 relationship. In fact, a single object is > typically handled be more then one agent and one agent handles more > than one object. I thought this was understood. If this idea ever gets > of the ground one would have to start talking about binding interfaces > to agents, agents publishing what interfaces they support and all that jazz… > > That’s actually when things would get interesting and cool. > -- John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]