[Oslc-Automation] Reusing Cm's Actions for teardown/operations

[Martin P Pain]

So if we were to use Actions, would we still want to make teardown Plans 
available?


Perhaps like this:

* The result contains an oslc:action link to an Action.

* The Action contains an oslc:usage property with a well-defined oslc-auto 
value (e.g. oslc_auto:teardown).

* The consumer can POST to that Action URL to perform the teardown.

* The provider may include a link from the Action to a Plan that can do 
the same thing. (I don't know what this would be called without including 
"automationPlan" in the name. Maybe simply "seeAlso" or some form of 
"related"/"relation" term?)

* The provider may include an indication of the Action's requiredness 
(oslc_auto:required with range boolean?)

* (The consumer can perform a GET on the Action to see the above two 
properties, or the provider could include it inline in the Result. 
However, even if it is still inline, it cannot be an anonymous node as it 
has to provide the URL on which to perform the POST).

* The provider includes some indication on the deployment Plan that a 
teardown Action is available on the Result. e.g. oslc_auto:actionOnResult 
pointing to a copy of the Action, but which cannot receive POSTs and 
either does not contain a link to a plan, or contains a link to a 
parameterised plan, should any consumers want to consume it in a 
provider-specific way. (This could be an inline anonymous node, as it does 
not need a URI to POST to).


I don't like this "two ways of doing things". If we wanted to go with the 
POST on the Action approach, which admittedly is simpler for the consumer, 
it adds an additional pattern for the provider to work with. If the 
provider wanted to use Plans, and we allowed both, then I would still want 
the Action approach to be required, so that consumers don't have to 
inspect and determine which is the correct approach to use.

So I'm still leaning on the side of not using Actions, but I'm not 
completely against it.

Martin



From:   John Arwe <johnarwe at us.ibm.com>
To:     oslc-automation at open-services.net, 
Date:   29/08/2013 18:25
Subject:        Re: [Oslc-Automation] Reusing Cm's Actions for 
teardown/operations
Sent by:        "Oslc-Automation" 
<oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net>



One of my comments to the proposers, in my occasional role as peanut 
gallery Core member, was the RPC-ish nature of the example. 
I suggested that it should just be a naked POST (no parameters); if a URI 
context is needed, the implementation can handle that transparently to the 
client via mechanisms like encoding it as a URI query parameter *within* 
the (opaque, to clients) action URI.  Steve S seemed to agree, but I think 
revision of those pages is bottlenecked behind Sam P's paternity leave. 
The latter I think aligns exactly with what we discussed in terms of 
:teardown on Result resources.  I realize it needs an example probably for 
anyone else to follow it, which is one thing I'm trying to get cranked out 
this week. 
Best Regards, John

Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 




From:        Martin P Pain <martinpain at uk.ibm.com> 
To:        oslc-automation at open-services.net, Oslc-Automation 
<oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net>, 
Date:        08/29/2013 12:17 PM 
Subject:        [Oslc-Automation] Reusing Cm's Actions for 
teardown/operations 
Sent by:        "Oslc-Automation" 
<oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net> 



Having had another look at CM's Action resources, [1] I don't think they 
would be suitable for the use that we're discussing, as they define that 
to execute them you POST to the URL (resource) that is contained in the 
property on the resource that will be affected by the action, including 
the URI of that resource in the POST body. 

While in theory we could use this approach, it doesn't reflect what we've 
been discussing so far. 
Does anyone feel strongly that we should try and reuse this? I don't. 

Martin

[1] 
http://open-services.net/wiki/change-management/Specification-3.0/#Resource_Action

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
_______________________________________________
Oslc-Automation mailing list
Oslc-Automation at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net

_______________________________________________
Oslc-Automation mailing list
Oslc-Automation at open-services.net
http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20130830/c37cfd04/attachment-0003.html>