[occi-wg] Simplified OCCI VM lifecycle diagram

[shlomo.swidler at gmail.com]

It's important for a cloud broker because I want to stipulate, e.g., "I need
n VMs that can be suspended and do not cost money when in that state".

Enumerating the state machine is one way to support that. It's expensive,
though, isn't it? And advertising the state transitions only works for an
actual resource, and it only allows you to see "one step" ahead, not the
entire state transition diagram - unless I'm willing to push the buttons and
change my resource's state.

Anyway I think we're into extension territory here.

.. Shlomo

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:20 PM, <shlomo.swidler at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Will we also provide an API to discover the lifecycle capabilities of the
>> provider? Or the lifecycle that is applicable for a specific abstract
>> category of resource, or a specific actual resource?
>>
>> These capabilities are important in order to support the use case of a
>> "cloud broker".
>>
>
> I have just added a discovery capability last week which covers the
> resource types or "kinds", categories, [open]search, etc. - we may be able
> to enumerate the state machine if it makes sense to do so (maybe it does -
> I'm not sure - maybe it makes more sense as an extension).
>
> I'm not sure how this is critical for the "cloud broker" use case, but
> regardless we will be advertising possible state transitions via link
> relations.
>
> Sam
>
>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Sam Johnston <samj at samj.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 7:05 PM, gary mazzaferro <
>>> garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, that's more or less what I had in mind - I'll be happy if we're
>>> not locking anyone down to any particular approach, because you can be sure
>>> the second we do someone will want something else (the ability to "destroy"
>>> an active resource being an obvious one). The fact that "destroy" maps
>>> directly to the "DELETE" verb rather than a state transition is another
>>> example of a reason to avoid overspecifying it.
>>>
>>> I do think we could afford to give guidance in this department though -
>>> both in the form of a normative state table and an informative state diagram
>>> (that is, a "may" or "should" requirement level).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Sam
>>>
>>>  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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20090903/39820fbc/attachment.html