[occi-wg] Simplified OCCI VM lifecycle diagram

[gary mazzaferro]

Sam,

True, we are not locking down any vendor to any specific implementation. At
this date, OCCI  does not have a attribute or operations defined for life
cycle management. OCCI does have to operate with provider implementations
that do support life cycles. We need to at least recognize those most basic
life cycles in terms of permissible API operations. For example, a provider
may not permit the deletion of an "active" VM. We will have recognize the
most rudimentary life cycle states to offer consistent error or exception
codes for operations in cases where providers do support life cycles.

If you feel that an  "occi life cycle" recommendation is needed at this
point, we should discuss it. For now, I would prefer to report provider life
cycle states mapped to occi enumerated state "values".

-gary


On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:

> Gary,
>
> While I still don't think we need nor want to lock down a state diagram, if
> we were to recommend one this looks fairly sensible. Reality is that if we
> mandate anything it won't mesh with all implementations so we'll exclude
> people unnecessarily.
>
> Sam
>
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:27 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I put together a simplified version of the OCCI life cycle (state)
>> diagram.   I'll be using this as an overview and for discussion purposes.
>> I'll provide a description in a couple of days.
>>
>>
>> -gary
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> occi-wg mailing list
>> occi-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20090903/98e15739/attachment.html