RE: [wsrp-pfb] WSRP UDDI straw man

["Richard Jacob" <richard.jacob@de.ibm.com>]

see my comments in <rj/>

Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,

        Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com


|---------+---------------------------->
|         |           Andre Kramer     |
|         |           <andre.kramer@eu.|
|         |           citrix.com>      |
|         |                            |
|         |           11/04/2003 03:14 |
|         |           PM               |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |       To:       wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org                                                                                                    |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                                        |
  |       Subject:  RE: [wsrp-pfb] WSRP UDDI straw man                                                                                               |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




I generally like it, but:


Producer diagram:


- we should not need to look for keyValue = "Producer". The tModel key
should be enough. This implies a separate tModel for Producer and Portlet.


<rj> agree, this was my alternative 2 - I didn't want to confuse people
with 2 proposals right from start, but can incorporate that into the straw
man (was planned as you can guess from the numbering :-) )


But this would mean that we need to put that information into the
bindingTemplates->instanceDetails, right?


</rj>


- I don't see the need for a "Portlet Application" WSRP Type.


<rj> was just an idea, which we didn't follow yet, to publish a group of
collaborating portlets as one application. Anyways I don't propose to do it
now, but wanted to indicate that the proposal would be open to it </rj>


- Do we not in fact need a "WSRP V1.0" tModel (at the binding template
level)? This would confirm the wsdl in the binding to be for a WSRP v1.0
service. The service level category seems to be too binding (and version)
independent for me as is.


</rj> yes we need one, as indicated in the producer chart, we might want to
step deeper here and conform to the UDDI-WSDL tech note/best practices
</rj>


Portlet diagram (optional right?):


</rj> yes <rj>


- Again, I would use a separatwe tModel rather than use "WSRP Type" with
keyValue "Portlet".


<rj> agree and can follow it, was just an idea to minimize the number of
tModels we need. Second need to investigate if a non-categorization tModel
can be put into a categoryBag of a businessService </rj>


- I like the idea of a reference but think we may want to have an extra
convention: when a business only publishes one producer service than all
portlets in that business MUST be hosted on that service and MAY omitt the
keyedReference. [Easier to publish and maintain.]


<rj> interesting idea, but on the other hand couldn't this make tooling
support more difficult? This would mean that a tool that wants to find the
according producer for a portlet needs to use 2 different algorithms.


Example: search for a "Stock Quote" portlet delivers 2 hits of portlets on
published by different business entities.


Now you have to find out for each portlet to which business it belongs,
then to check if there is only one producer businessService under that
business published and then take the according wsdl.


If you always have the reference to the producer businessService you just
implement one algorithm and go...


Question here is: does the keyedReference to the producer make it more
complicated for human beings which might use a UDDI-UI to find the
information they desire?


</rj>


regards,
Andre


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com]
Sent: 04 November 2003 12:07
To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-pfb] WSRP UDDI straw man





Hi all,


after my vacation and illness I crawled through the pfb postings.
I tried to bring up a proposal for wsrp in UDDI following the discussion
points and issues raised on the last F2F and the threads here.
I though pictures say more then words so I created some figures to
illustrate rather than having a detailed description/paper.
It seeks for a very simple approach allowing us to publish producers as
well as portlets.
It also is compliant with what we have currently captured in Alan's
document.
This one is intended to be a starting point for a more detailed discussion
concerning UDDI.


(See attached file: WSRP-UDDI-Strawman.ppt)





Mit freundlichen Gruessen / best regards,


        Richard Jacob
______________________________________________________
IBM Lab Boeblingen, Germany
Dept.8288, WebSphere Portal Server Development
Phone: ++49 7031 16-3469  -  Fax: ++49 7031 16-4888
Email: mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com