All, My response is
-----Original Message----- From: Balazs Konya [mailto:balazs.konya@hep.lu.se] Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 5:11 AM To: Andrew Grimshaw; pgi-wg@ogf.org Cc: 'Oxana Smirnova' Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Profiling vs new specs
hi,
Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
It turns out that my memory is not as good as I thought.
First, the state model already includes Pending, and example profiles (but not formal profiles) for file staging, and suspend resume, are already in the document.
yes, those state examples caused some confusion, some groups though that those example states are actual BES recommendations :)
I think the state model needs fixing (or call it extension) in order to be suitable for PGI.
Note that the createActivity takes an ActivityDocument which contains the JSDL, and has an extensibility point (element) that we could profile to include something like HOLD_PENDING (note that this is also where the document recommends subscriptions go as well.)
this is the kind of approach i don't really like: instead of introducing a clean extra input parameter you propose to squeeze everything into an extension of the ActivityDocument which i thought initially was just the "JSDL".
[Andrew Grimshaw] This is exactly what the extensibility point is for, so that extra information can be agreed upon and profiled without requiring a new function to be defined every time an optional parameter is desired. Thus, a profile can be constructed along with a conformance claim and a service can advertise which profiles/conformance claims it supports.
There is a very similar approach all over BES. Things are not treated in a clean manner, there is quite an ambiguity around the ActivityDocument. [Andrew Grimshaw] There is no ambiguity around the ActivityDocument. As specified it has a JSDL document embedded. Anything else may or may not be used by the service.
bye, Balazs Konya