[occi-wg] Events ?

[Alexis Richardson]

Gary

Have you seen the interface comparison spreadsheet?

http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=pGccO5mv6yH8Y4wV1ZAJrbQ

This is our core focus for interop.  To achieve commonality right here
right now.  No invention just interop.

a


On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 9:51 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well since this is a interoperability interface, I'm assuming there will be
> gateways to other technologies like fabrics. Events, event delivery and
> event management are important  patterns and are supported by others. I
> don't believe we'll be able to get away without supporting them for very
> long. One of the big drawbacks to snmp and cimoms are the lack of event
> support and an infrastructure to support event message persistence.
>
> I'm also not sure where we are drawing the line in terms of
> interoperability. There was a general consensus that occi should be focusing
> on integration points in the cloud, but I didn't see a clear definition of
> an integration point. (I was out of the loop for a while) In  the occi model
> the platform can be considered a container (loosely, a vm) with
> infrastructure resources provisioned. The container life cycle and resource
> provisioning are "management" integration points, although there are no
> verbs published yet.
> Will portions of occi interface be permitted to permeate the container
> boundary ?  It is still unclear the level of interaction, if any, between
> the occi and the container contents. Maybe I missed the definition.
>
> -gary
>
>
>
>
>
> Alexis Richardson wrote:
>>
>> Indeed and XMPP and HTTP should not be overlooked either.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Alexis Richardson
>>> <alexis.richardson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Interesting point.
>>>>
>>>> Speaking as someone who is professionally involved in messaging and
>>>> events my STRONG advice would be to completely leave them for now.
>>>> Implementation of the planned draft will naturally bring up use cases
>>>> suited to the various eventing technologies and protocols, none of
>>>> which are fully baked by the way.  This will be good fodder for future
>>>> work but currently is **** not in scope ****.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed, and I don't know AMQP well enough to say how it could fit here.
>>>
>>> The use case we need to take away from it is that OCCI messages aren't
>>> necessarily going to be ephemeral - they may well be long lived, queued,
>>> serialised, saved to file, etc.
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>
>>
>
>