RE: [wsrp-pfb] UDDI straw man - part 2

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

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>      |
|         |                            |
|         |           11/07/2003 12:53 |
|         |           PM               |
|---------+---------------------------->
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |                                                                                                                                                  |
  |       To:       wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org                                                                                                    |
  |       cc:                                                                                                                                        |
  |       Subject:  RE: [wsrp-pfb] UDDI straw man - part 2                                                                                           |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|




We need to decide if publishing by admins by hand (i.e. using a HTML UI) is
a requirement for UDDI publishing that we must support.
<RJ> I'm not sure about that. I would expect most implementations of
consumers and producer to provide some kind of tooling/UI so the answer
here would be: no.
Also should we restrict ourselves to an implementation of the UI (which
might change at any time anyway) which doesn't support all features of the
UDDI-API (or at least the one function we'd like to have)? I think again:
no.
On the other hand a manual search using the UDDI UI might be nice.
</RJ>


My suggestion for making the producer reference optional assumed that it
was. This would:


- allow the "producer reference" to be optional (i.e. not required) when
publishing a portlet. This allows publishing a pure "portlet handle". A
consumer must use some additional knowledge (e.g. only one producer server
found for a business publishing the portlet) to be able to use the portlet.


<RJ> not sure if I like this "dangling reference" and this fallback, but
yes it might work. But also could mess up a lot of things. Vendors could
choose this option and custemers might try to publish multiple producers
anyways (and we know that these things happen). </RJ>


- allow other forms of producer reference. As we discussed on the call, one
could use the producer's wsdl url, some sort of discovery doc
(WS-MetaDataExchange) or an inter-registry link to form other types of
reference. We would only standardize use of producer service key.


<RJ>agreed there are of course other options here. Publishing the
producer's wsdl seems not to be the best choice for me (might corrupt
referential integrity). Discovery doc is one addition option. Also we might
want to think about another bindingTemplate, holding the producer's service
key in the accessPoint (somehow weird but would work). To be honest I like
the prodcer reference idea for know most because it seems very natural to
me and elegant (and other UDDI papers are using a similar approach). I
would like to contact our UDDI experts (Klaus von Riegen, SAP and John
Colgrave, IBM) and ask for their opinion. </RJ>


On approach 2 slides:


- publishing portlet diagram should show the portlet handle as the access
point value.


<RJ> it does? or is it unclear that accessPoint="PortletHandle" is an
example for a portlet handle? also the bindingTemplate slide says:
<accessPoint URLType="other">portlet_handle_comes_in_here </accessPoint>.
What should we change there exactly?


- rename "producer reference" to "producer service reference" (see above).


<RJ> agreed and done </RJ>


- producer binding templates could optionally carry the wsdl tModel as well
as others [though I agree that you already make the connection by linking
the producer tModel to wsdl tModel].


<RJ> sure, I showed only the minimal required set </RJ>


regards,
Andre


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com]
Sent: 06 November 2003 15:25
To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-pfb] UDDI straw man - part 2





Hi all,


following our discussion I edited the straw man.
The follow on approach starts at page 7.


I also started to play around with the UDDI test registries offered by IBM
(https://uddi.ibm.com/testregistry) and Microsoft
(https://test.uddi.microsoft.com).
Here I encountered one problem:
I wasn't able to add a producer reference to the Portlet's businessService
entity.
Here I was not able to reference the WSRP Producer Reference tModel (which
I set up) and to edit the keyvalue, i.e. add our tModel to the categoryBag.

It didn't work in both UIs, IBM & MS.


This seems weird, the API allows to do that (need to crosscheck), and I saw

similar approaches for such a usage of an categorization tModel in various
UDDI papers.


Klaus, do you happen to know how I can do that (see staw man pages 9 and 12

- publishing Portlets) ?
Or did I miss something?


(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