[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb][UDDI #1] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uplo aded
Alan concerning your statement inlined below, we didn't discuss to publish the producer as a businessEntity. Rather than that as a businessService, the same is true for portlets. The statement below is not the whole truth. First, when publishing businessServices, i.e. Producers, you must have a businessEntity anyways, this is enforced by the UDDI data model Even if you have a producer published in a business you can't tell that all portlets belong to that producer. There are two cases which show this. 1. Multiple producers in one business 2. portlets referencing a producer in another businessEntity business A producer X producer Y portlet i in X portlet j in Y portlet k in Z business B producer Z 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 |---------+----------------------------> | | "Kropp, Alan" | | | <Alan.Kropp@vigne| | | tte.com> | | | | | | 01/19/2004 07:10 | | | PM | |---------+----------------------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>, <wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org> | | cc: | | Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb][UDDI #1] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uplo aded | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Got it. So long as every published producer has at least one businessEntity, then you should be able to obtain the portlets for the given "business". I'd like to make this a MUST requirement for publishing the Producer. -----Original Message----- From: Andre Kramer [mailto:andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:34 AM To: wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb][UDDI #1] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uplo aded On the portlet in producer service query question, a producer service may support more than one business entity is what I meant: business A producer server X portlet I in X portlet J in X business B portlet K in X regards, Andre -----Original Message----- From: Kropp, Alan [mailto:Alan.Kropp@vignette.com] Sent: 16 January 2004 17:55 To: Kropp, Alan; Andre Kramer; wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb][UDDI #1] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uplo aded Re-posting to discussion thread..please excuse the redundancy. -----Original Message----- From: Kropp, Alan Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:52 AM To: Andre Kramer; wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsrp-pfb] Groups - wsrp-pfb-uddi-tn-draft-02.doc uploaded <alank>inline</alank> -----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 uploaded Not 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 understood A 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 uploaded The 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 history PLEASE 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]