[occi-wg] Is OCCI the HTTP of Cloud Computing?

Alexis Richardson alexis.richardson at gmail.com
Wed May 6 09:47:02 CDT 2009


I'd like to see something which can be implemented by (say) both Chris
and Sam easily.


On Wed, May 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Edmonds, AndrewX
<andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> wrote:
> I should of added that whatever the outcome of the schema discussions are that an early prototype implementation such as what Sam has provided is hugely beneficial and useful - especially with OGF26 on the horizons.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Edmonds, AndrewX
> Sent: 06 May 2009 15:32
> To: Richard Davies; Sam Johnston
> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Is OCCI the HTTP of Cloud Computing?
>
> I've a feeling that by choosing atom as our meta-model (analogous to base classes) that we may end up limiting the number of format that we can expose via the OCCI through this dependency. It is this choice that perhaps is the reason for the unclear path to a clean and efficient means of rendering, the OCCI model instance passed back through the OCCI, as text or JSON.
> To be honest it is kinda scary talk when conversions, translations etc of a schema are being talked of at this early stage, imho.
> Couldn't we just define a schema particular to our use cases and then see along with our requirements (e.g. easy rendering of models as text) if atom fits the bill? That schema could then be rendered as atom via transformation if required.
>
> Andy
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Richard Davies
> Sent: 06 May 2009 15:22
> To: Sam Johnston
> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] Is OCCI the HTTP of Cloud Computing?
>
>> > I don't believe this will make JSON or TXT either less flexible or more
>> > work for machines - to the contrary, I believe it's easier to parse if
>> > you don't have to have rules like 'always ignore ||| which is just there
>> > as legacy from the XML'.
>>
>> That may be fine if we don't mind the text version being lossy, which is
>> something else I was trying to avoid.
>
> Don't think we need to make it lossy - just would need slightly smarter
> conversion tools when converting back to XML which know when they have to
> put in blank or standard XML fields which have been omitted for simplicity
> in other formats.
>
> Richard.
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
> Registered Number: E902934
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
> Registered Number: E902934
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>



More information about the occi-wg mailing list