Time: 11:00AM Eastern US (contact MichaelFiedler if you’d like to participate)
Agenda
- Main agenda items:
- Specification issues
- Implementation updates
- Open forum for implementers to provide updates
- Review 04 April Minutes
- Automation V3
- Workgroup business
- Next meeting: Thursday, 18 April at 11 AM Eastern US
Minutes
Attending: Michael Fiedler, David Liu, Martin Pain, Umberto Caselli, Stephen Rowles, John Arwe, Dave Brauneis, Charles Rankin, Paul McMahan, John Abbott, Jing Qian
- Specification Issues
- Implementation updates
- Jing Qian reported that IBM Rational Jazz products will allow projects to have explicit OSLC Automation associations in the next release
- Automation V3
- Scenario re-cap for folks re-joining the workgroup meetings
- Automation Plan configuration scenario - some questions that came up
- Is the configuration associated with a plan a hint or a prerequisite for execution
- Why do we care about specifying this (beyond current Auto Plan parameters)? Scenario elaboration required
- TODO: Michael Fiedler and Paul McMahan to get this queued up for an upcoming workgroup discussion
- Agent/Worker scenarios
- Is this going to be a required part of the spec (i.e. all providers MUST support)? or an optional profile?
- Need to be careful not to try specifying a “universal agent”
- Orchestration/Lifecycle Workflow
- Charles Rankin tentative volunteer to co-lead with Louis.
- Temporary deployment and teardown scenarios
- Martin covered the 3 main scenarios (see link in agenda for details) and questions/discussion ensued
- Does provider implicitly know how to teardown what it deployed? Likely, but no guarantees. Concept of “reversal” automation plan
- Assumption provider has some inherent knowledge of what it deployed - not an arbitrary collection of “things”
- Stephen Rowles introduced the concept of not specifying how to know when something is eligible for teardown, but possibly specify how long to keep it instead - expiry. MF note: hope my notes are correct on that point.
- For complex scenarios with multiple providers. Is there a super-orchestrator managing the whole process? Cooperation and dependencies between providers needs to be discussed.
- TODO: Martin will work on diagram/flow for the scenarios
- Automation Template
- Umberto covered the basic scenarios (see link in agenda above)
- Proposed a new dialog type (template creation) for Automation or OSLC in general
- Template creation dialog does returns an RDF resource. Provider can optionally persist the template resource, but need not.
- Template creator later POSTs a “real” Auto Request based on the template - perhaps with modified or added final values
- Needed by other OSLC workgroups/scenarios? TODO: Michael Fiedler to follow up with Core
- Comment: Auto Plans can change while consumer is holding on to the template. POSTed Auto Request could be incorrect or out of date. Comment: Could experience this issue today, but window might be narrower.
- Could OSLC prefill be used to accomplish this? Still creates a real resource unless other meta info provided (headers, add’l attributes) indicating this is a template/draft resource. TODO: Discuss at upcoming workgroup.
- TODO: Michael Fiedler to recap the scenario and proposed solution on the mailing list for discussion.
- Workgroup business
- Next meeting: 18 April at 11AM Eastern US
