[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
[
List Home]
Re: [cosmos-dev] RE: Registration code and sample
|
All our APIs are provisional, which
means we shouldn't have to deprecate anything before 1.0, right? I.e.
adopters understand that the APIs are subject to change at this point.
Besides, our set of adopters (while growing) is still small, so we
should be able to notify all those parties about the change, and therefore
not have something to clean up later.
David
Hubert H Leung <hkyleung@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent by: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
02/11/2008 06:34 PM
Please respond to
Cosmos Dev <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| Cosmos Dev <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
cc
| Ali Mehregani <amehrega@xxxxxxxxxx>,
cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx, Cosmos Dev <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
Subject
| Re: [cosmos-dev] RE: Registration code
and sample |
|
I agree with Bill's comment about changing the "query" API to
"graphQuery" to match the operation name. I will make the
refactoring in COSMOS code tomorrow. To avoid breaking existing code,
I will keep the query API and mark it deprecated. I will remove it
in i10.
_________________________
Hubert Leung
IBM Toronto Lab
hkyleung@xxxxxxxxxx
905-413-3382
"Muldoon, William
H" <William.Muldoon@xxxxxx>
Sent by: cosmos-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx
02/11/2008 05:35 PM
Please respond to
Cosmos Dev <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
To
| Ali Mehregani/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
|
cc
| Cosmos Dev <cosmos-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx>
|
Subject
| [cosmos-dev] RE: Registration code and
sample |
|
Ali
Actually, I prefer that the parameters
should be typed to match their values. In this case, I assume we are passing
mdrIds, which are really URIs. So I would expect the interface to pass
an array of URIs instead of Strings:
6)public
IDeregisterResponse deregister(URI[] mdrIds) throws
DataManagerException
Also I do expect XML to be passed
in and consumed by consumers, instead of COSMOS POJOs. Even though COSMOS
POJOs may be more convenient for COSMOS clients, XML has the advantage
of matching the CMDBf standard and being compatible with NON-COSMOS clients.
Using XML, NON-COSMOS clients are more likely to operate with COSMOS MDRs
and the COSMOS UI should be more likely to operate with NON-COSMOS MDRs.
If necessary, COSMOS clients can always use the COSMOS transformation utilities
to convert between the XML and COSMOS POJOs.
In general, I think that we can maximum COSMOS usability and adoptability
by aligning our COSMOS interfaces, operations and parameters with the standard
definitions.
For example, the COSMOS MDR “query”
operation name doesn’t match the CMDBf standard:
public Element query(Element request)
I would prefer it to be:
public Element graphQuery(Element request)
Since it’s different, COSMOS
adopters will need to understand that the COSMOS MDR “query” operation
really is the same as the CMDBf MDR “graphQuery” operation. But
if we used the same name, then anyone using COSMOS who is familiar with
CMDBf would intuitively realize that this operation must be the CMDBf “graphQuery”
operation.
Regards
Bill
PS I’m including cosmos-dev for other opinions about the COSMOS interfaces
From: Ali Mehregani [mailto:amehrega@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 3:52 PM
To: Muldoon, William H
Cc: Sheldon Lee-Loy; Mark D Weitzel
Subject: RE: Registration code and sample
Bill,
> Shouldn’t the
“String[] mdrIds” be “Element mdrIds”?
Can you explain why 'Element mdrIds' is preferred over 'String[] mdrIds'?
There has been a separate discussion threat with Mark W. about reducing
client-side "XML bleeding". See https://bugs.eclipse.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=217704.
Therefore I need to understand why you think providing an Element
parameter by a client is more suitable than an array of string.
> Also, shouldn’t the server side interfaces “mirror” the client
side interfaces?
Preferably it should but not if it's at the cost of introducing complexity
on the client side. i.e. the methods adopters typically interact
with should be intuitive. That goal shouldn't be overlooked by having
symmetric client/server side interfaces.
e.g. It's completely fine having public
Element query(Element request) on
the server side but we can't expect XML fragments to be passed in and consumed
by clients. So the equivalent client side method should be public
IQueryResponse query(IQuery request).
Thanks,
Ali Mehregani
Phone Number: (905) 413-3712
Service Modeling Language - COSMOS
http://www.eclipse.org/cosmos/
"Muldoon, William
H" <William.Muldoon@xxxxxx>
11/02/2008 01:55 PM
|
To
| Ali Mehregani/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
|
cc
| Sheldon Lee-Loy/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "Mark
D Weitzel" <weitzelm@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
Subject
| RE: Registration code and sample |
|
Ali
The client signatures look good, except
for # 6:
6)public
IDeregisterResponse deregister(String[] mdrIds) throws
DataManagerException
Shouldn’t the “String[] mdrIds”
be “Element mdrIds”?
Also, shouldn’t the server side interfaces
“mirror” the client side interfaces?
Regards
Bill
From: Ali Mehregani [mailto:amehrega@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2008 10:33 AM
To: Muldoon, William H
Cc: Sheldon Lee-Loy; Mark D Weitzel
Subject: RE: Registration code and sample
Hi Bill,
Thanks for your feedback.
The method signatures of the client side code is important to be consistent.
I agree FederatingCMDBClient.register(String managementDomainEPR)
should be Federating.register(EndpointReference
managementDomainEPR). However, the method signatures defined on the
server side code are not as visible to adopters. The parameter types
defined for the server side methods need to be serializable to/from XML.
A serializable object doesn't need to be registered if the parameter
type is Element/String. Therefore, I'm reluctant to change the signatures
of org.eclipse.cosmos.dc.mdr.registration.AbstractFederatingCMDB.java.
The method signatures of the client side code (i.e. org.eclipse.cosmos.dc.mdr.registration.client.FederatingCMDBClient)
will be changed to:
1)public
IRegisterResponse register (IRegisterRequest registrationRequest) throws
DataManagerException
2)public
IRegisterResponse register (EndpointReference[] mdrEPRs)throws
DataManagerException
3)public
IRegisterResponse register (EndpointReference[] mdrEPRs, IQuery query)
throws
DataManagerException
4)public
IRegisterResponse register (EndpointReference managementDominEPR) throws
DataManagerException
5)public
IDeregisterResponse deregister(IDeregisterRequest deregistrationRequest)
throws
DataManagerException
6)public
IDeregisterResponse deregister(String[] mdrIds) throws
DataManagerException
7)public
IDeregisterResponse deregister(IQuery query) throws
DataManagerException
8)public
IDeregisterResponse deregisterAll() throws
DataManagerException
Let me know if you agree with the client-side method signatures.
Thanks,
Ali Mehregani
Phone Number: (905) 413-3712
Service Modeling Language - COSMOS
http://www.eclipse.org/cosmos/
"Muldoon, William
H" <William.Muldoon@xxxxxx>
11/02/2008 10:14 AM
|
To
| Ali Mehregani/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA,
Sheldon Lee-Loy/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
|
cc
| "Mark D Weitzel" <weitzelm@xxxxxxxxxx>
|
Subject
| RE: Registration code and sample |
|
Ali
Thanks! This will be very useful. I
have a minor comment. The interface is a little inconsistent with the parameter
usage of EPRs. Some operations accept EPRs in the parameters:
public
Element register (EndpointReference[] mdrEPRs) throws
DataManagerException
While other operations accept EPRs as strings or elements in the parameters:
public
Element register (String managementDominEPR) throws
DataManagerException
public
Element registerMDREntries(Element mdrReferences) throws
CMDBfException;
Shouldn’t all operations accept EndpointReference parameters?
Regards
Bill
From: Ali Mehregani [mailto:amehrega@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:59 PM
To: Sheldon Lee-Loy; Muldoon, William H
Cc: Mark D Weitzel
Subject: Registration code and sample
Hi Sheldon/Bill
The registration code and sample are complete. You will need the
following set of plug-ins to be able to run the sample:
org.eclipse.cosmos/examples/org.eclipse.cosmos.samples.cmdbf.services
org.eclipse.cosmos/examples/org.eclipse.cosmos.example.mdr
org.eclipse.cosmos/examples/org.eclipse.cosmos.example.mdr.registration
org.eclipse.cosmos/data-collection/org.eclipse.cosmos.dc.dataManager.client
org.eclipse.cosmos/data-collection/org.eclipse.cosmos.dc.mdr.client
org.eclipse.cosmos/data-collection/org.eclipse.cosmos.dc.mdr.registration
org.eclipse.cosmos/data-collection/org.eclipse.cosmos.dc.mdr.registration.client
org.eclipse.cosmos/data-collection/org.eclipse.cosmos.dc.mdr.registration.common
org.eclipse.cosmos/tests/common/org.eclipse.cosmos.common.tests
org.eclipse.cosmos/tests/data-collection/ org.eclipse.cosmos.example.mdr.registration.tests
To exercise the registration code, run the following JUnit class:
org.eclipse.cosmos.example.mdr.registration.tests/src/org.eclipse.cosmos.example.mdr.registration.internal.core/TestSampleFederatingCMDB.java
Important: Before running the JUnit test, open ‘testMessages.properties’
under the same package and modify ‘testTempDirectory’ to point to a valid
temporary directory. You may need to modify other variables under
this file based on your configuration.
Studying this JUnit will give you a good overview of the types of APIs
that are available for registration. In summary you can register
configuration items based on:
- A registration request
- Via a query result set submitted to a set of MDRs
- All configuration items of all MDRs
Almost symmetric APIs are available for deregistration. Please let
me know if you have problems running the sample.
Thanks,
Ali Mehregani
Phone Number: (905) 413-3712
Service Modeling Language - COSMOS
http://www.eclipse.org/cosmos/
_______________________________________________
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