I'm comfortable with that. There's nothing about this interface that requires rework of the primary. It is really a 'value-add' that would encourage a few more adopters. Cheers, -Adrian On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro@gmail.com> wrote:
I believe though discussions, multiple was sidelined to be examined in a later revision. If you could, place it on the issues list.
-gary
Adrian Cole wrote:
Hello, WG.
In re-reading the OCCI spec, something became clear to me I frankly hadn't noticed before: All operations require system-generated ids. POST creates an object and returns a url containing its UUID. All other operations require this UUID. UUIDs are important, and there will be systems that should use this for efficiency's sake. However, moderate use would pretty much require users to store a mapping between what they call a resource and its UUID. This mapping would end up as another table or cache that clients would need to maintain.
The alternate path is a name-based interface to the system that allows access to resources based on ids the client decides. A good example of this is atmos online, where they have 2 interfaces: /objects and /namespace but offer the same methods on each. For convenience, namespace methods return the UUID in a response header, so one can later switch. Regardless, clients do not need to parse metadata or listings to access their resources as they are available by their natural names.
Is this something we can consider supporting in OCCI?
Regards, -Adrian jclouds _______________________________________________ occi-wg mailing list occi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg