[occi-wg] Events ?
alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Tue May 19 15:57:24 CDT 2009
Have you seen the interface comparison spreadsheet?
This is our core focus for interop. To achieve commonality right here
right now. No invention just interop.
On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well since this is a interoperability interface, I'm assuming there will be
> gateways to other technologies like fabrics. Events, event delivery and
> event management are important patterns and are supported by others. I
> don't believe we'll be able to get away without supporting them for very
> long. One of the big drawbacks to snmp and cimoms are the lack of event
> support and an infrastructure to support event message persistence.
> I'm also not sure where we are drawing the line in terms of
> interoperability. There was a general consensus that occi should be focusing
> on integration points in the cloud, but I didn't see a clear definition of
> an integration point. (I was out of the loop for a while) In the occi model
> the platform can be considered a container (loosely, a vm) with
> infrastructure resources provisioned. The container life cycle and resource
> provisioning are "management" integration points, although there are no
> verbs published yet.
> Will portions of occi interface be permitted to permeate the container
> boundary ? It is still unclear the level of interaction, if any, between
> the occi and the container contents. Maybe I missed the definition.
> Alexis Richardson wrote:
>> Indeed and XMPP and HTTP should not be overlooked either.
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Alexis Richardson
>>> <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Interesting point.
>>>> Speaking as someone who is professionally involved in messaging and
>>>> events my STRONG advice would be to completely leave them for now.
>>>> Implementation of the planned draft will naturally bring up use cases
>>>> suited to the various eventing technologies and protocols, none of
>>>> which are fully baked by the way. This will be good fodder for future
>>>> work but currently is **** not in scope ****.
>>> Agreed, and I don't know AMQP well enough to say how it could fit here.
>>> The use case we need to take away from it is that OCCI messages aren't
>>> necessarily going to be ephemeral - they may well be long lived, queued,
>>> serialised, saved to file, etc.
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
More information about the occi-wg