OK,
I also changed "MUST report status ..." to "MUST enable reporting of
status ..." in two requirements. Otherwise I left them as is.
BTW, after much thought this afternoon, rereading what you and Shel
agreed to, and with the change to "description/definition", I think this
is very good.
Thanks.
Andrea Westerinen wrote:
> I am sure that we will discuss these points at some length :-).
>
> Andrea
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John DeCarlo [mailto:]
> Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 1:10 PM
> To: Andrea Westerinen
> Cc: 'Shel Finkelstein';
> Subject: Re: [wsdm] Thoughts on "transaction" wording for MUWS
>
>
> Andrea,
>
> I agree with your suggestion to leave it the original way you posted,
> especially for the first two, since we need to be able to describe units
>
> of work.
>
> I just changed "definition" to "description/definition". As you
> mentioned in an earlier message.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Andrea Westerinen wrote:
>
>
>>John, Could we go with the original wording and discuss further
>>limiting it, since your rewording combines the concepts of describing
>>the unit of work and executing it. And, the broader concepts are
>>better, if they can be agreed upon.
>>
>>Andrea
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: John DeCarlo [mailto:]
>>Sent: Friday, September 26, 2003 12:36 PM
>>To: Shel Finkelstein
>>Cc: Andrea Westerinen;
>>Subject: Re: [wsdm] Thoughts on "transaction" wording for MUWS
>>
>>
>>
>>Here are some suggestions:
>>
>>[TRANS.001] The Manageability Interface MUST support, as part of the
>>management information, a "unit of work" that consists of multiple
>>actions against a single resource.
>>
>>[TRANS.002] The Manageability Interface MUST support, as part of the
>>management information, a "unit of work" that consists of the same
>>action applied to multiple resources that the manageable resource
>
> knows
>
>>about.
>>
>>What do you think?
>>
>>Shel Finkelstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>My immediate thoughts on your questions; I'll defer to Andrea if she
>>>joins in too:
>>>
>>>1. I probably wasn't around for the scope discussion, but you take
>>>great minutes, so you must be correct. I'd pick B over A.
>>>
>>>2. Manageable resource doesn't support definition; requirement was
>>>that the spec define units of work with these characteristics. This
>>>leads to the subsequent requirements. But I'm easy; can you suggest
>>>better wording?
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>>>
>>>Shel
>>>
>>>
>>>John DeCarlo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Shel,
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>1. I thought we had agreed that the part of transaction management
>>>>that was in scope was getting information from one manageable
>
> resource
>
>>
>>>>through the manageability interface.
>>>>
>>>>Thus we need some clarification wherever it says "multiple
>>>>resources".
>>>>
>>>>I lean toward one of these two options:
>>>>
>>>>A) "multiple resources within the manageable resource"
>>>>
>>>>or
>>>>
>>>>B) "multiple resources that the manageable resource has information
>>>>about."
>>>>
>>>>AND
>>>>
>>>>2. How can the manageability interface support a definition????
>>>>Perhaps the manageability interface must just support identification.
>>>>
>>>>Shel Finkelstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>John, here's current version; Andrea and I are very close to
>>>>>convergence, but she should have last word on some edits I made.
>
> I'm
>
>>
>>>>>sending on to you now only because you requested latest iteration
>>>>>for
>>
>>
>>>>>inclusion before you left for the day.
>>>>>
>>>>>Shel
>>>>>
>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>Section Heading - Collections of Management Actions and Transactions
>>>>>
>>>>>NOTE: This section may affect and be affected by requirements for
>>>>>long-running business transactions/business processes and workflows.
>>>>>
>>>>>[TRANS.001] MUST support the definition of a "unit of work" that
>>>>>consists of multiple actions against a single resource [TRANS.002]
>>>>>MUST support the definition of a "unit of work" that consists of the
>
>
>>>>>same action applied to multiple resources [TRANS.003] MUST support
>>>>>the definition of a "unit of work" that consists of multiple actions
>
>
>>>>>against multiple resources
>>>>>
>>>>>[TRANS.004] MAY support execution of a unit of work against multiple
>>>>>resources [TRANS.004.1] MUST support execution of a unit of work
>>>>>against a single resource
>>>>>[TRANS.005] MUST support idempotence for units of work against one
>
> or
>
>>more
>>
>>
>>>>>resources
>>>>>* NOTE 1: Should this also be a requirement for single actions
>>
>>against a
>>
>>
>>>>>resource?
>>>>>* NOTE 2: If units of work are not supported, this requirement is
>>
>>met
>>
>>
>>>>>trivially
>>>>>[TRANS.006] MUST report status, errors or lack of support for
>>
>>execution of a
>>
>>
>>>>>unit of work against one or more resources
>>>>>
>>>>>[TRANS.007] SHOULD support requests for asynchronous execution of
>>>>>actions against one or more resources, within a unit of work, with
>>>>>(idempotent) callbacks
>>>>>* NOTE 7.1: How are singleton asynchronous resource requests called
>
>
>>>>>out?
>>>>>
>>>>>[TRANS.008] MAY support requests for atomic (all-or-nothing)
>>>>>execution of a unit of work against one or more resources
>>>>>[TRANS.008.1] If asynchronous actions are supported (TRANS.007) and
>>>>>asynchronous actions occur in at atomic unit of work, then eventual
>>>>>execution of the asynchronous actions MUST be guaranteed if the
>>>>>atomic unit of work is completed, with ensuing consequent callbacks
>>>>>also guaranteed [TRANS.009] MUST report status, errors or lack of
>>>>>support for atomic execution of a unit of work against one or more
>>>>>resources
>>>>>
>>>>>[TRANS.010] MAY allow changes for partially completed units of work
>>>>>to be externally visible [TRANS.010.1] If atomic units of work are
>>>>>supported (TRANS.008), then changes due to the actions in the unit
>
> of
>
>>
>>>>>work SHOULD NOT be externally visible until the unit of work has
>>>>>completed
>>>>>
>>>>>[TRANS.011] MUST support requests for rollback of atomic units of
>>>>>works that have not completed [TRANS.012] MUST support status for
>>>>>rollback requests for atomic units of work
>>>>>[TRANS.013] SHOULD support time-out for a unit of work consisting of
>>>>>multiple actions against one or more resources, with callback that
>>
>>may
>>
>>
>>>>>result in a rollback request for that unit of work
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>--
>>>>
>>>>John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own
>>>>email:
>>>>voice: 703-883-7116
>>>>fax: 703-883-3383
>>>>DISA cube: 703-882-0593
>>>
>>>
>
--
John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own
email:
voice: 703-883-7116
fax: 703-883-3383
DISA cube: 703-882-0593
