RE: [wsdm] Manageability Capabilities Markup Proposal

+1

 

(BTW I was +1 too on removing the UML but looks like this 
was dismissed before I came back from holiday. Thanks Igor for trying to bring 
consistency with the other Web services specs out there).

 

William

From: Sedukhin, Igor S 
[mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 12:04 
PM
To: Heather Kreger; 
Subject: 
RE: [wsdm] Manageability Capabilities Markup Proposal

Since the list of capabilities may change at runtime, it 
may make sense for this to be its own capability e.g. MyCapabilities... Also 
while the resourceID is invariant against the manageable resource, and supported 
capabilities are variants against the endpoints which expose them, there could 
be a situation where two endpoints expose different capabilities for the same 
resource, and so this does not sound like it belongs to 
the Identity.

 

-- Igor 
Sedukhin 
.. 
()
-- (631) 
342-4325 
.. 
1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749

 

From: Heather Kreger [mailto:] 

Sent: Monday, October 18, 2004 2:04 PM
To: 

Subject: [wsdm] Manageability Capabilities 
Markup Proposal

Hi, 
Based on my action item in the last few calls, here is a write up for 
how we could add Manageability Capabilities compromise from our last call to 
MUWS. 
Please review and be prepared to discuss in Boston: 

(See 
attached file: CapabilitiesProposal.101904.doc)

Heather 
Kreger
STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging 
Technologies
Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable 
Systems"

919-543-3211 (t/l 441) 
cell:919-496-9572