[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
I'm satisfied with the uddi model. If more than one Producer for a businessEntity, then that's ok.
-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Jacob [mailto:richard.jacob@de.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 11:59 PM
To: Kropp, Alan
Cc: Andre Kramer; wsrp-pfb@lists.oasis-open.org
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
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.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]