21.03.2012 T8.1-T8.4 Conference Call

From IMarine Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Agenda

Time: Wed March 21, 2012, 15:10 - 16:50 CET

  • Follow-up of the feedback and impact received at the 1st TCom meeting on the new Resource Model
    • how to extend at conceptual level the new resource model to Runtime Resources
    • adding a type/label to resources, to avoid dependencies among facets definition

Participants

T8.1: Manuele Simi (CNR)

T8.4: Fabio Simeoni (FAO)

Main Discussions and Actions

Resource Model and Runtime Resources

  • At conceptual level, we can't any longer state that we model only HTTP-based Services (Runtime Resource covers a much broader class of services)
  • As far as for management functions:
    • Support for Runtime Resources is at publication time with the RR Definition Portlet
    • In some cases, we will offer deployment for them (e.g. web apps on Tomcat are already deployable in the D4Science e-infrastructure)
  • No impact on the current common-resource library is foreseen

How to Type Resources

  • Firstly, we recognized that grouping common properties (scope, description and name, so far) in a Common Facet is appropriate
    • they can be extended with no impact on the model and its implementation
    • queries will be homogeneous, no longer need of dedicated queries for them: common properties will be discovered as any other information in a facet-based resource
  • About the topic, we agreed that putting a label in the common properties is a very ad hoc solution
  • A Type Facet would work better and be more in line with the overall approach
  • We talked over the issue about how to decouple the implementation of functionality that produces a Facet from the implementation of its consumer(s). We distinguished about private information (consumed only by services inside the same subsystem, therefore sharing somehow the functionality implementation) and public information (potentially consumed by unknown services). Ideas and concerns were about:
    • the possibility to report public information under the Type Facet, in such a way consumers are bound only to such information
      • it may vary even inside each class (e.g. a stateful Web Service has different endpoints from a REST service)
    • the possibility to have public and private information in each Facet

Conclusions

No conclusions, yet. This is an ongoing discussion, another telco on these points above will follow soon.

Personal tools