My 2 cents… we don’t have to
call it “DataBroker” in the code. We can implement a set of base
“Broker” functionality and then specialize it (either declaratively
or programmatically) to support “Data”, “Service”,
“Stock”, whatever.
Cheers,
Joel
The contents of this e-mail are intended for the named addressee only.
It contains information that may be confidential. Unless you are the named
addressee or an authorized designee, you may not copy or use it, or disclose it
to anyone else. If you received it in error please notify us immediately and
then destroy it.
From:
cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mark D Weitzel
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007
10:39 AM
To: Cosmos
Dev
Cc: Cosmos
Dev; cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [cosmos-dev] Things
that make you go hummmm....Ce quinous appelons la <<Data Broker>>
Yes.
Expanding
the thought....
The
Management Domain is there simply as a bootstrapping mechanism. It should
contain a well known set of things (gag, not the word services) that can be
asked for, e.g. its data broker, notification broker. It should contain
only these well known, well defined things.
Likewise,
the Data Broker should be responsible for only Data Managers.
If we
need a way to register and look-up arbitrary services, then we can introduce a
"Service Broker". This may also be a reasonable extension
mechanism. That is, we want people to be able to easily provide
additional value. Having a way to register custom, value added services
is a reasonable way to do this. That said, in keeping with Jimmy's focus
on i6, the COSMOS use cases we've defined so far we can get away with just the
Management Domain and the Data Broker.
-mw
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mark Weitzel | STSM | IBM Software Group | Tivoli | Autonomic Computing | (919) 543 0625
| weitzelm@xxxxxxxxxx
"Todd, John A"
<John.Todd@xxxxxx>
Sent
by: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/16/07
10:15 AM
Please respond
to
Cosmos Dev
<cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
"Cosmos Dev"
<cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [cosmos-dev] Things that make you go hummmm.... Ce
quinous appelons la
<<Data Broker>>
|
|
So when a “Service Manager” comes
into focus and we decide what that is exactly, it’ll have its own
‘Broker’ potentially called a ‘Service Broker’ which
will be independant of Data Brokers?
- John
From: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mark D Weitzel
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 10:09 AM
To: Cosmos Dev
Cc: Cosmos Dev;
cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [cosmos-dev] Things that make you go hummmm.... Ce
quinous appelons la <<Data Broker>>
Jimmy,
We should not broaden the scope of the "Data Broker". The role
of this component should be only to provide you an EPR of a "Data
Manager".
One of the key reasons for keeping the function focused is that we want a well
defined collection that can be placed in the Management Domain.
One of the things that we need to describe is the initialization of the Data
Manager and the Client.
>From the Client's perspective, I see it going to a specific Management
Domain and asking: "Give me my Data Broker". It gets back the EPR
that it can now query in a well defined way. If we don't partition the
responsibilities of the collection of resources, then we'll end up with just a
Management Domain and a whole bunch of queries against it. Our
interactions should be more refined than this.
I've put some design assumptions on the use case page regarding broker
initialization (http://wiki.eclipse.org/DataBrokerInitialization).
I've also started the design of the Management Domain
(http://wiki.eclipse.org/COSMOS_Design_197868).
-mw
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mark Weitzel | STSM | IBM Software Group | Tivoli | Autonomic Computing | (919) 543 0625
| weitzelm@xxxxxxxxxx
"Mohsin, Jimmy"
<Jimmy.Mohsin@xxxxxx>
Sent by: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
08/15/07
06:40 PM
Please respond
to
Cosmos Dev
<cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
|
To
|
"Cosmos Dev"
<cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
[cosmos-dev] Things that make you go hummmm.... Ce qui
nous appelons la <<Data Broker>>
|
|
All,
Maybe a rhetorical question…
1. Till date, we have been calling our COSMOS DC broker
a “Data Broker”.
2. It is now more and more clear that the “Data
Broker” does not merely deal with data; but it deals with WSDM EPRs,
underneath which could be Data Managers OR “Service Mangers /
Providers”.
3. Given the critical/central nature of our “Data
Broker”, is it appropriate to even call it a “Data Broker” ?
Or should it have a name that captures its WIDER brokering capabilities?
4. If you agree with this characterization, any
suggestions for a new name?
Thanks,
Jimmy Mohsin
+1-609-635-1703
_______________________________________________
cosmos-dev mailing list
cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmos-dev_______________________________________________
cosmos-dev mailing list
cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/cosmos-dev