[occi-wg] Simple JSON rendering for OCCI

[Andre Merzky]

Quoting [Sam Johnston] (May 15 2009):
> 
>    On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Randy Bias <[1]randyb at gogrid.com>
>    wrote:
> 
>    Yes.  Extensions do not need to be interoperable.  If it becomes clear
>    that a given extension does need to be interoperable (e.g. widely
>    adopted or lots of variations of the same theme) then thats a red flag
>    indicating we need to evaluate it for inclusion in the core.
> 
>    Exactly - and by using registries we should be able to avoid this in
>    most cases anyway. Process goes like this:
>      * Extensible spec released, implementors have at it
>      * MacroHard wants to talk about RAID levels for their upcoming
>        BigDisk
>      * It's not in the spec so they complain to the registry maintainer
>        (us?)
>      * We think it's a good idea (or not) and add it to the appropriate
>        registry (or not)
>      * JuniperBerry see MacroHard's BigDisk eating their lunch and want to
>        add a similar feature to their LittleDisk
>      * It's already in the registry so nothing needs to be done - bingo,
>        interoperability

An alternative, but somewhat more heavyweight/slower, and
thus only ustified when there is vested interest from
multiple sides:

  * Extensible spec released, implementors have at it
  * MacroHard wants to talk about RAID levels for their upcoming
    BigDisk
  * It's not in the spec so they propose an extension
    package to us (aka OCCI-WG)
  * we discuss it, think it's a good idea (or not), and
    produce a formal specification document
  * implementors hack at it, and interop if proven by
    multiple implementations
  * JuniperBerry see MacroHard's BigDisk eating their lunch and want to
    add a similar feature to their LittleDisk
  * it's already specified so nothing needs to be done - bingo,
    interoperability

Andre.


PS.: I am not sure if OGF would go into the space of
maintaining registries, or such.  OGF's business is to
produce specification documents, and to host the
infrastructure for doing so.  But I am sure that, if a
registry is the way to go, we'll find a host for that...

>    This doesn't work for complicated requirements, but for that we have
>    the good work being done by other SSOs like DMTF - we can continue to
>    focus on what interests us and users can do everything they need
>    without breaking out into multiple protocols.
>    Sam
> 
>    On 5/14/09 12:42 PM, "Sam Johnston" <[2]samj at samj.net> wrote:
> 
>      Whoever said extensions need to be interoperable? We can do what we
>      can (e.g. registries) but beyond that extensions are just somewhere
>      for people to put stuff, like trunk space.
-- 
Nothing is ever easy.