Roger What specific points did you most want feedback on? a On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Roger Menday <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
On 14 May 2009, at 10:59, Alexis Richardson wrote:
+1 to Sam's "we may need to revisit this point in the name of interop"
I'm not sure if this is *just* an interop thing ...
I thought my suggestions yesterday on how to transition state, error reporting, handling 'processing' states, etc ... were reasonable.
Kind of disappointed this morning that I didn't get some feedback from you guys ... :(
Roger
At this stage we are shooting for a draft. The draft will let people implement prototypes which will let us debug interop and refine the model.
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Sam Johnston <samj@samj.net> wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
Quoting [Sam Johnston] (May 13 2009):
Yes, me, I don't think HATEOAS should be applied in this context. But I realise/accept that I maybe the only one with that opinion - thats ok. So I'll say it here one last time, for the record, and then will shut up: "a static simple state model allows for very simple clients. Extensions can be defined via substates, or additional transitions."
I would counterargue that HATEOAS allows for even simpler clients because they don't have to worry about hardwiring even a simple state model. Using HTTP we can even feed them plain $LANG descriptions of what the transitions and targets are - it doesn't get any easier than that and you don't have to worry about updating clients to implement new goodies.
I don't see that. If I want to write a client tool which starts a resource, I want to make sure the resource is in RUNNING state when the client reports success. But if that client (a) has to infer the available states from a registry, it cannot posisbly know which state has the semantic meaning of RUNNING attached. Further (b), if the client only sees those state transitions it is allowed in its current state, how does it know what transition path to take to reach that target state? Is it (I am making those up obviously):
INITIAL -> create() -> CREATED -> elevate() -> ELEVATED () -> run() -> RUNNING
or
INITIAL -> create() -> CREATED -> init() -> INITIALIZED -> run() -> RUNNING
Or should the tool simply fail because it cannot see a run() transition in its INITIAL state?
The client must at least know how to create a resource and when it has done so successfully a "start" actuator will appear, perhaps with a target state of "running" (TBD). In that case it knows that if it pulls the "start" handle eventually the resource should end up "running". Otherwise it could know (from the registry) that "start" is the right button to push, but that's starting to break HATEOAS principles. We have options - it's just a matter of finding the right one.
I think HATEOAS works pretty well if a human is in the loop who can parse the available transition description, and deduce a semantic meaning. I don't think it makes for simple tooling, really.
I agree that humans are better at this stuff than computers but I'm unconvinced this translates to complex tooling.
Then again, I may misunderstand the proposed usage of HATEOAS in OCCI. So, can you help me out: what mechanism will avoid the confusion from the example above, if a vendor can provide init() and elevate() transitions on the fly, with no predefined semantics attached? How would my tool deduce the transition path it needs to enact?
The semantics for common functions will be in the registry. It's ones that are uncommon and impossible to predict like "translate" and "migrate" that we're catering for here, and generally there will need to be some kind of client side support for these.
As I said below, "we may need to revisit this point in the name of interop", and I suggested categories as one possible solution (e.g. a "starting" vs a "stopping" transition)... parametrised transition calls are another... for example, how do I tell something to start *without* saved state if saved state is present (ala cold start vs resume)?
Sam
I don't think anyone knows every possible thing that users are going to want to do with the API (I certainly don't have the confidence to say I do anyway) but we may need to revisit this point in the name of interop... Atom categories would be one way to achieve this (e.g. "Cold Reboot" and "Warm Reboot" might go in the "restart" category). Sam
References
1. mailto:andre@merzky.net
-- Nothing is ever easy.
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
_______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
Roger Menday (PhD) <roger.menday@uk.fujitsu.com>
Senior Researcher, Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE, U.K. Tel: +44 (0) 208 606 4534
______________________________________________________________________ Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe Limited Hayes Park Central, Hayes End Road, Hayes, Middlesex, UB4 8FE Registered No. 4153469
This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of addressee(s) and may contain information which is privileged and confidential. Unauthorised use or copying for disclosure is strictly prohibited. The fact that this e-mail has been scanned by Trendmicro Interscan and McAfee Groupshield does not guarantee that it has not been intercepted or amended nor that it is virus-free.