John DeCarlo <> wrote on 05/21/2004 10:48:24 AM:
>
>
> 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.
If there is an existing interface that may fit the bill I'm not sure what
we are asking WSRF TC to do with the requirement.
> [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.
That is certainly one approach.
> 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.
Not suggesting that it is necessarily a third party. It could (in simple
cases)
be implemented (if the implementer so chose) on the same endpoint as the
management interfaces. This would essentially provide a query and
retrieval
mechanism for "related" WS-Resource and their respective EPRs.
T o m M a g u i r e
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
internet:
phone: 845.433.9401 (t/l 293-9401)
