If you feel that an "occi life cycle" recommendation is needed at this point, we should discuss it. For now, I would prefer to report provider life cycle states mapped to occi enumerated state "values".
Right, that's more or less what I had in mind - I'll be happy if we're not locking anyone down to any particular approach, because you can be sure the second we do someone will want something else (the ability to "destroy" an active resource being an obvious one). The fact that "destroy" maps directly to the "DELETE" verb rather than a state transition is another example of a reason to avoid overspecifying it.
I do think we could afford to give guidance in this department though - both in the form of a normative state table and an informative state diagram (that is, a "may" or "should" requirement level).
Cheers,
Sam
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Sam Johnston
<samj@samj.net> wrote:
Gary,
While I still don't think we need nor want to lock down a state diagram, if we were to recommend one this looks fairly sensible. Reality is that if we mandate anything it won't mesh with all implementations so we'll exclude people unnecessarily.
Sam
Hi,
I put together a simplified version of the OCCI life cycle (state) diagram. I'll be using this as an overview and for discussion purposes. I'll provide a description in a couple of days.
-gary
occi-wg mailing list
occi-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg