[glue-wg] ComputingService and Endpoints, a point of view

[Florido Paganelli]

Hi all,

On 2012-08-27 12:08, Florido Paganelli wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On 2012-08-25 12:12, stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk wrote:
>> Florido Paganelli [mailto:florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se] said:
>>>> What would you propose to do with Share, Resource and Manager?
>>>
>>> Same approach. As I said, this depends if we want to override the
>>> associations or not. This cannot be represented in UML, but makes
>>> sense in realizations.
>>
>> And what about the relations between them? And the same for the
>> storage classes? I think this would be quite a big change which would
>> need a significant advantage to be worthwhile, and so far I don't
>> think you've given one.
>>
>
> There is no changes. As I said, UML cannot express inheritance so well
> as implementation is straightforward.
>
> But we have the opportunity to fix it in the realization documents that
> are not final yet.
>

I just wanted to notify everybody that I was wrong on the above. 
Carefully re-reading GFD1.47, I found out that ComputingService actually 
explicitly redefines the <- exposes -> association. It's not done in the 
UML schema, but on page 24, reading the table representing 
ComputingService, it says that the ComputingEndpoint.ID association 
*redefines* Endpoint.ID.

Stephen was right, we have that ComputingService that can only host 
ComputingEndpoints.

I think this is bad design, but I guess it's too late to change it now. 
The reasons for this restrictive behaviour are hard for me to 
understand... but that's what we have.

Cheers,
-- 
Florido Paganelli
Lund University - Particle Physics
ARC Middleware
EMI Project