17 messages in org.oasis-open.lists.wsdmRE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| vb...@hp.com | Mar 29, 2004 4:00 pm | |
| Sedukhin, Igor S | Mar 29, 2004 5:48 pm | |
| Vambenepe, William N | Mar 29, 2004 6:15 pm | |
| Sedukhin, Igor S | Mar 30, 2004 1:30 pm | |
| Murray, Bryan P. | Mar 30, 2004 1:47 pm | |
| Vambenepe, William N | Mar 30, 2004 2:14 pm | |
| Sedukhin, Igor S | Mar 30, 2004 2:18 pm | |
| Vambenepe, William N | Mar 30, 2004 2:32 pm | |
| Murray, Bryan P. | Mar 30, 2004 2:56 pm | |
| Fred Carter | Mar 30, 2004 3:15 pm | |
| Sedukhin, Igor S | Mar 30, 2004 5:21 pm | |
| Sedukhin, Igor S | Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm | |
| Murray, Bryan P. | Mar 31, 2004 11:25 am | |
| Mark Ellison | Mar 31, 2004 1:45 pm | |
| Vambenepe, William N | Mar 31, 2004 4:35 pm | |
| Mark Ellison | Apr 1, 2004 5:26 am | |
| Heather Kreger | Apr 1, 2004 7:00 am |
| Subject: | RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Vambenepe, William N (vb...@hp.com) | |
| Date: | Mar 30, 2004 2:32:31 pm | |
| List: | org.oasis-open.lists.wsdm | |
Hi Igor,
We need to be once again careful about the distinction between MUWS and MOWS here. In the MOWS world, we usually assume that we have access to the operational WSDL of the service, so discovery becomes mostly (not only) a question of going from the operational WSDL to the management handle (be it WSDL or EPR). Clearly we can specify a lot here to help people and we should do so, in future versions of MOWS.
In the MUWS case though, there isn't a lot we are going to be able to say in general. I have a router in front of me. I want a handle to manage it (EPR, WSDL, whatever I need to send management messages to it). What is MUWS going to say about this discovery process? Probably not very much. Because MUWS is addressing varied domains, the discovery process will often be domain-specific. Very often, I expect this will happen through relationships. From one manageable resource that I happen to know, I retrieve the EPRs of other resources and so on. Or using registries of EPRs. I agree the MUWS discovery section needs more work (and even more importantly we need to add support for relationships in MUWS), but nothing that requires to delay or cancel MUWS 0.5. And even in MUWS 1.0 we can't expect the MUWS spec to have all the answers. This is similar to how people agree on new manageability capabilities that they create. MUWS is not going to specify how this happens, it is an out-of-band, maybe domain-specific activity. This doesn't mean MUWS is useless.
Regards,
William
-----Original Message----- From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor...@ca.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:35 PM To: Murray, Bryan P.; Vambenepe, William N; ws...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
Then we must delay publication of WSDM 0.5 until it clarifies how exactly to get proper EPRs. Otherwise it is unuseable. The statement in the WSRF [ A WS-Resource-qualified endpoint reference may be returned as a result of a Web service message request to a factory to create a new WS-Resource or, alternatively, from the evaluation of a search query on a service registry, or as a result of some application-specific Web service request. ] Does not help WSDM 0.5 implementers at all.
The http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ws-resource/ws-m odelingresources.pdf says [ Note that other patterns for enabling access to stateful resources are possible. For example, a Web service could maintain the resource identity as static service state, thus obviating the need to pass that identity in the WS-Addressing endpoint reference. This design choice implies a one-to-one mapping from Web service endpoints to stateful resources and thus a need for a unique Web service endpoint for each stateful resource. ] So I don't understand why April 14-15th tests are not compliant to WSDM 0.5 or WSRP or WSRF?...
It was just a matter of clearly stating the case istead of delaying it for the better times...
-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor...@ca.com) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
-----Original Message----- From: Murray, Bryan P. [mailto:brya...@hp.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 5:03 PM To: Sedukhin, Igor S; Vambenepe, William N; ws...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
WSDM has decided to use WS-ResourceProperties to support its need for attributes for version 0.5. I think we should not add a constraint to the WSDM specs contradicting some of what is required by WS-RP.
This does not mean that a manageability endpoint needs to supply an EndpointReference that makes use of ReferenceProperties. But, since WS-RP is based on WS-Addressing, it does mean that a compliant manageability endpoint does need to understand the WSA SOAP headers.
Furthermore, a compliant manageability client does need to understand the ReferenceProperties aspect of an EndpointReference and treat them appropriately when sending messages to that endpoint.
The interop tests we run in April 14-15 are not WSDM 0.5 compliant. I expect that the tests we run at the next face-to-face will be. We can't just kludge the spec to make our interop tests work. The interop tests need to be used to validate that we are using the right technology in our spec.
Bryan
-----Original Message----- From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor...@ca.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:46 PM To: Vambenepe, William N; ws...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
I just want to define consistently interoperable specs. This has nothing to do with the interop scenario.
If I give you a WSDL that follows WSDM 0.5 and in the binding it states that WSA headers are required and mustUnderstand. There is no way you can talk to such manageabilty endpoint without knowing where to get the EPRs.
In the 1.0 or 0.8 if we decide to explain how and where to get the EPRs for this case, we can remove the statement.
The problem here is that WS-Resource pattern is the "default" in WSRP and so we'd have to constrain to make it work for 0.5. If it was otherwise, i.e. "singleton" was defualt, we'd not have to state anything.
-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor...@ca.com) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
-----Original Message----- From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vb...@hp.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:31 PM To: Sedukhin, Igor S; ws...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
Hi Igor,
770 Section 6 should say "WS-ResourceProperties MUST be used in a singleton pattern. WSA headers are not expected and not required in message exchanges." We may remove this statement after we have discussed this and addressed properly.
How about we discuss before adding the statement? :-)
I don't understand why we need this statement. I understand that we have chosen to limit ourselves to this case in the interop demo, but why does that mean the spec needs to be limited to this? This is just one of many decisions we have made for the sake of simplicity in the interop and I don't have a problem with it in that context. But what is the rational for restricting the WSRF implied resource pattern in the spec?
Do you have a reason that would not apply to WSRF but would apply to WSDM and would therefore require us to profile WSRF in such a way?
William
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/wsdm/members/leav e_workgrou p.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/wsdm/members/leav e_workgrou p.php.