Tom Maguire wrote:
> John DeCarlo <> wrote on 05/21/2004 09:24:58 AM:
>
>
>>+1 from me, too.
>>
>>If WSDM specifies a "TellMeWhatResourcesYouProvideManageabilityFor" type
>>of operation, it would have to be optional (except in some profiles,
>>should we get there).
>
>
> +1 However, I'm not sure that WSDM needs to define this
> interface. WS-ServiceGroup should be investigated to see if it fits the
> bill.
I thought that was one of the reasons to submit WSDM requirements to the
WSRF TC.
[snip]
>>And maybe eventually the description might well say it is deprecated
>>because of the full adoption of Service Groups or other registry
>>mechanisms (or relying on a notification infrastructure) for Manageable
>>Resources.
>
>
> ServiceGroup is just an interface why would we not adopt it now?
I don't see why not. Just not sure I understand would it would take to
adopt it.
For instance, having this hypothetical operation return a Service Group
makes a lot of sense to me. Then all the features of a Service Group
can be leveraged, such as treating it as just another type of registry.
OTOH, requiring that each Manageability Provider register every
manageable resource with a third party that will create a Service Group
out of it may not be the way we want to go initially.
--
John DeCarlo, The MITRE Corporation, My Views Are My Own
