[Oslc-Automation] Actions 2.0 updates

Martin P Pain martinpain at uk.ibm.com
Wed Mar 19 06:43:16 EDT 2014 

> 1: I defined the immediate execution dialog output.  Re-reading it, 
> it doesn't give a client any way to know whether or not the action 
> succeeded, which "seems like a problem" so I'll probably take 
> another pass at it unless others think that's a fine state of 
> affairs ("fire and forget"). 

I don't like the "MUST" requiring an empty response, as I think it would 
be valid to use a Creation dialog as an Action Dialog, if the action is to 
create something (e.g. "create linked defect") - the intention as I 
understand it is that "an empty response does not imply that the action 
failed".

If we didn't fix this "problem" now, then it would be 
backwards-incompatible to make an empty response mean "cancelled". So we 
can either define what the non-empty "success" response should be, or 
accept that if we want to add the distinction later the "cancelled" 
information will have to be explicit.

IMO, an explicit way of saying "the dialog was cancelled" be better 
anyway, as otherwise the consumer is implying something from lack of data 
(even though it isn't RDF, so that's less of a problem, but still feels 
like bad practice). Although that's already the case in existing creation 
& selection dialogs. (With selection dialogs, fair enough - if it's not 
telling you what it's selected it's not fit for purpose. However, with 
creation dialogs just because it doesn't tell you what it's created 
doesn't neceserily have to mean that it hasn't created it.) An explicit "
http:statusCodeNumber" value in the response, or something equivalent to 
"oslc_auto:state" or "oslc_auto:verdict" might be better, to allow an 
explicit way to say "this was cancelled" or "an error occurred" (again, I 
know the response isn't RDF, but we have these terms to reuse if we want 
them).

> Martin: what do you want to do with the contents of the ODT at the 
> end of App B?  Has that been effectively superseded by your Auto 2.1
> wiki content, or does that need revising as well (if so, are you 
> able to make the revisions)? 

In my mind this is a version of [1], but applied to a specific example. 
[2] also does the same, as you suggest, but addresses a different example. 
The ODT covers how a consumer processes an action with multiple bindings 
of different types. [2] addresses deferred execution dialogs and future 
actions.

I think a worked example covering the scenarios in the ODT would still be 
valuable, although it will need a fair amount of work to update it to the 
latest spec content. I suggest it could go in an "Actions examples" page, 
which could also link to the teardown scenarios page. Alternatively, we 
could definethe scenario that those examples fulfill, and create a 
separate page for that. Any feeling on which of these would be best?

(I see the contents of this ODT, despite using AutoRequests, to be 
examples that belong in Core not Automation.)

[1] 
http://open-services.net/wiki/core/Exposing-arbitrary-actions-on-RDF-resources/#Domain-specific-consumers
[2] 
http://open-services.net/wiki/automation/Temporary-deployment-scenarios/

Martin Pain
Software Developer - Green Hat
Rational Test Virtualization Server, Rational Test Control Panel
Open Services for Lifecycle Collaboration - Automation WG joint chair

E-mail: martinpain at uk.ibm.com
Find me on:  and within IBM on:  




IBM United Kingdom Limited
Registered in England and Wales with number 741598
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hants. PO6 3AU

"Oslc-Automation" <oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net> wrote on 
19/03/2014 01:40:46:

> From: John Arwe <johnarwe at us.ibm.com>
> To: oslc-automation at open-services.net, 
> Date: 19/03/2014 01:41
> Subject: [Oslc-Automation] Actions 2.0 updates
> Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <oslc-automation-bounces at open-services.net>
> 
> The following is now live: 
> 
> 1: I defined the immediate execution dialog output.  Re-reading it, 
> it doesn't give a client any way to know whether or not the action 
> succeeded, which "seems like a problem" so I'll probably take 
> another pass at it unless others think that's a fine state of 
> affairs ("fire and forget"). 
> 
> 2: I updated the resource definition tables to match the text (very 
> little to do there - just added httpVersion, IIRC).  I did not 
> generate shapes yet, but what's there is sufficient IMO for review 
purposes. 
> 
> 3: I updated the Appendix B in-line examples to reflect the current 
text. 
> 
> Martin: what do you want to do with the contents of the ODT at the 
> end of App B?  Has that been effectively superseded by your Auto 2.1
> wiki content, or does that need revising as well (if so, are you 
> able to make the revisions)? 
> 
> I *did not* deal with the fixed body/auto request change, since I 
> liked Martin's "what's wrong with 201 on FB then?" reaction and I 
> want a bit more time to consider it.  Given that it's really all 
> about how to write the normative text rather than changing intent, 
> I'm unafraid to get some reviews started (and I have some folks I'm 
> going to push it to on Wed). 
> 
> I *did not* add examples (yet) for the other interaction patterns. 
> Most people are interested in "mainline" ones AutoReq and empty 
> body, so with those covered already plus a "here's how you mix them 
> together" example, I think reviews should proceed. 
> I *did not* create a core vocabulary revision yet.  I found a couple
> of things that bug me a whit (ala the ParameterInstance question), 
> and depending on how those shake out the core changes would change. 
> I think fleshing out the examples will make it obvious what I saw 
> (what I found jumped out when I wrote down all the IPs on 1 page) 
> and provide a more concrete starting point for discussing what (if 
> any) changes we feel are necessary. 
> Best Regards, John
> 
> Voice US 845-435-9470  BluePages 
> Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140319/efdab340/attachment-0003.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 518 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140319/efdab340/attachment.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1208 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140319/efdab340/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 360 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://open-services.net/pipermail/oslc-automation_open-services.net/attachments/20140319/efdab340/attachment.gif>

More information about the Oslc-Automation mailing list