[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uploaded
-----Original Message-----
From: Andre Kramer [mailto:andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 8:30 AM
To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uploadedNot to jump the gun on the discussion topics, but I wanted to make one comment.
Searching for portlets, we would still just have one simple mechanism: look for the WSRP_PORTLET "tModel". That gives one all the portlets (say in a business).
Having found a portlet, only then would a consumer need to process one or more types of producer reference. For each that it understands, it would need to look for a bindingTemplate of the appropriate type (tModel).
We should strongly encourage the WSRP_PRODUCER_SERVICE_REFERENCE tModel to be understood and to be the first / preferred choice. By not defining any others, we make this nearly as strong as always having a "SOAP binding for WSRP services".
If we supported both bindingTemplate and keyedReference then the consumer would have to look for its binding types in two places (two different lists).
So ease of searching is not the really issue, rather:
1) difficulty of extracting binding information
2) inability to bind to a portlet if producer reference type is not understoodA direct query such as "give me all the portlets for this producer" would not be supported in any case?
<alank>I think we need to support just such a query. It's fundamental. We've discussed using the businessEntity to represent a Producer...it's a natural query sequence in standard UDDI to retrieve all of its associated businessService (i.e. portlet) entities.</alank>
But, let's get the topics on a list so that we can debate and resolve them.
regards,
Andre-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com]
Sent: 16 January 2004 15:27
To: Andre Kramer
Cc: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uploaded
Thanks for your changes Andre, they helped a lot (as usual :-) )
I accepted the vast majority of the changes and will upload the new
revision to the repository.
As discussed I see the problem with the UDDI UIs, but have some concerns
about multiple ways of publishing.
My concern is that it makes it more difficult to find those sevices.
Basically one would need to build a union of services found using the
various find methodologies.
This raises the barrier for implementors of search functionality in the the
products but also makes it difficult for users using the UDDI UIs, because
they would need to "mentally" build the union of these sets, which makes an
easy way of searching questionable.
It also makes the reasoning hard to understand and maybe may lower the
acceptance.
I still would prefer to have one crisp definition/method.Just to make things clear: I do not insist on one method or the other, they
are arguable in either way and we should find the best solution for us, but
my concern is to have whenever possible one crisp definition.Before going deeper into this in this thread, I would like to propose we
keep an issue list on the different topics, so we have easy to find threads
and can keep track of their resolution.Alan, would you kick off such a tracking document and assign numbers to the
issues raised?
It could make sense to track issues separatly for common model/UDDI/EBXML.I will kick off some discussion threads including this one.
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> |
| | |
| | 01/15/2004 11:38 |
| | AM |
|---------+---------------------------->
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|| |
| To: Richard Jacob/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org |
| cc: |
| Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uploaded |
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
I've done a pass over the document and suggested many minor editorial
changes (see attached). These can be accepted or rejected using the change
tracking for draft-03.My remaining area of concern is on how a Portlet should reference its
producer.I would still like to be able to use HTML registry UI to publish a portlet
so I added a "Portlet Producer Service Reference" *bindingTemplate* (new
section 5.3.3). This may be used instead of the keyedReference in the
businessService category bag entry so that the portlet service ends up with
two binding infos: one containing the portlet handle and another containing
the producer's UDDI serviceKey.I would allow both types of reference (category bag keyedReference or
bindingTemplate), using the same tModel key. However, it would be simpler
to only have one mechanims when searching/looking-up.Note that, in addition, I would also allow other types of "producer
reference". E.g. a portlet could add a wsdl link or an inter-registry link
to its producer and I would keep the tech note open ended on this.I've updated the test.uddi.microsoft.com "CTXS test" business so that the
Citrix example portlet now has 3 binding templates of type and meaning:"WSRP Portlet" - access point contains portlet handle
"WSRP Producer" - access point is WSDL http url
"WSRP Producer Service Reference" - access point contains UDDI serviceKey
for Producer.
[I've hit the limit on the number of items I can publish into the test
registry so the service key value is not very sensible and I have not
tested that the UDDI client SDK can get at all the binding info (like
categoryBag this should just work, or we raise a bug).]I suppose we need to discuss this modified proposal on our next call and
Richard and I need to fill in some missing parts of doc next.regards,
Andre-----Original Message-----
From: richard.jacob@de.ibm.com [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com]
Sent: 18 December 2003 13:24
To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsrp-pfb] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uploadedThe document revision wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc has been submitted by
Richard Jacob (richard.jacob@de.ibm.com) to the WSRP Publish/Find/Bind SC
document repository.This document is revision #1 of wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-01.doc.
Document Description:
Added Portlet publishing.Download Document:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/wsrp-pfb/download.php/4562/wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc
View Document Details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp/wsrp-pfb/document.php?document_id=4562
Revision:
This document is revision #1 of wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-01.doc. The
document details page referenced above will show the complete revision
historyPLEASE NOTE: If the above links do not work for you, your email
application
may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to copy and
paste
the entire link address into the address field of your web browser.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-pfb/members/leave_workgroup.php
.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrp-pfb/members/leave_workgroup.php
.#### wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-03-ak.doc has been removed from this note on
January 16, 2004 by Richard Jacob
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]