[occi-wg] thought on interoperability vs integration

[Sam Johnston]

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Richard Davies <richard at daviesmail.org>wrote:

> We'd reserve part of the namespace for nouns, verbs and attributes for
> these
> vendor extensions. For example, our VNC attribute on a server might be:
>
>  vx_com.elastichosts_vncpassword
>
> and Randy's load balancer attributes on a network might be within:
>
>  vx_com.gogrid_XXXXX
>
> with any verbs he needs within http://api.example.com/
> <id>/vx/com.gogrid/XXXX
>
> Randy - would this kind of scheme work for you?
>

The point of vendor extensions was for esoteric cruft that is unlikely to
ever be needed by any two vendors (the example I gave was com.cisco.cdp).
Attributes that are interesting to multiple vendors (e.g. vncpassword) can
be added to the relevant registry after discussion... though for this
specific example I was leaning towards a "console" link relation with
credentials embedded in the url or link attributes.

Sam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090511/3174adc0/attachment.html