[occi-wg] JSON Rendering

Wed May 2 13:13:28 EDT 2012

So if you can add those to the current trunk versions, that'd be awesome!

Andy
andy.edmonds.be

On Wed, May 2, 2012 at 7:01 PM, Gary Mazz <garymazzaferro at gmail.com> wrote:

>  Hi,
>
> I build the latest version with line numbers
>
> -gary
>
>
> On 4/18/2012 8:33 AM, Jamie Marshall wrote:
>
>  thanks Florian, that sounds like a good idea to me.
> Jamie
>
> > From: florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de
> > To: ijm667 at hotmail.com
> > CC: ralf at nyren.net; occi-wg at ogf.org
> > Subject: Re: [occi-wg] JSON Rendering
> > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 14:10:14 +0000
> >
> > Ok, if no one complains we'll do it on monday 16:00 CET (14:00 UTC). I
> suggest we use Skype. If there are no objections, I will log into the
> occi.wg Skype Account and coordinate the call from there.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Florian
> >
> > Am 18.04.2012 um 10:41 schrieb Jamie Marshall:
> >
> > > Both are good for me.
> > > Jamie
> > >
> > > > To: ijm667 at hotmail.com
> > > > Subject: RE: [occi-wg] JSON Rendering
> > > > Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 09:19:55 +0200
> > > > From: ralf at nyren.net
> > > > CC: florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de; occi-wg at ogf.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > What about:
> > > >
> > > > - Monday 2012-04-23 at 16:00 CET (14:00 UTC)
> > > >
> > > > or
> > > >
> > > > - Tuesday 2012-04-24 at 16:00 CET (14:00 UTC)
> > > >
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > regards, Ralf
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 22:15:05 +0200, Jamie Marshall
> <ijm667 at hotmail.com> <ijm667 at hotmail.com>
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Monday, Tuesday and Friday, at any time, are my best days,
> Wednesday is
> > > >
> > > > > quite busy and Thursday is out of the question.SincerelyJamie
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > From: florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de
> > > >
> > > > > To: ralf at nyren.net
> > > >
> > > > > Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 19:59:07 +0000
> > > >
> > > > > CC: occi-wg at ogf.org
> > > >
> > > > > Subject: Re: [occi-wg] JSON Rendering
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > I would also like to participate. What date / time would be best
> for
> > > >
> > > > you?
> > > >
> > > > > For me every day of the week would work.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > --Florian
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Am 17.04.2012 um 21:34 schrieb Ralf Nyren:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >> Good idea, next week should be ok.
> > > >
> > > > >> /Ralf
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 17:51:04 +0200, Edmonds, AndrewX
> > > >
> > > > >> <andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> <andrewx.edmonds at intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>
> > > >
> > > > >>> Suggestion: are people free for a confcall say next week to
> review and
> > > >
> > > > >>> finalise the JSON work needed to be completed?
> > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >>> Andy
> > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > > >
> > > > >>> From: occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org<occi-wg-bounces at ogf.org>]
> On
> > > >
> > > > >>> Behalf Of alexander.papaspyrou at tu-dortmund.de
> > > >
> > > > >>> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2012 3:46 PM
> > > >
> > > > >>> To: ralf at nyren.net
> > > >
> > > > >>> Cc: occi-wg at ogf.org
> > > >
> > > > >>> Subject: Re: [occi-wg] JSON Rendering
> > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >>> +1 from me on the separation path. Let's get it proper before it
> > > >
> > > > cannot
> > > >
> > > > >>> be separated anymore.
> > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >>> -A.
> > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >>> Am 05.04.2012 um 16:43 schrieb "Ralf Nyren" <ralf at nyren.net><ralf at nyren.net>
> :
> > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> On Thu, 5 Apr 2012 09:21:52 +0000, "Feldhaus, Florian"
> > > >
> > > > >>>> <florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de> <florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> Hi,
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> how do we proceed?
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> The best thing IMO would be to create a version 1.2 of the HTTP
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Rendering doc and update it so that it is a clear separation
> between
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Protocol and Data Format. The existing text/occi, text/occi and
> the
> > > >
> > > > >>>> JSON data formats would then be pluggable modules to this spec.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> The quick way is to continue writing the JSON rendering as a
> > > >
> > > > >>>> standalone HTTP-based OCCI rendering which happens to be quite
> > > >
> > > > similar
> > > >
> > > > >>>> to the HTTP Rendering. Saves time but causes lots of
> duplication.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> Following a some responses to your comments:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> Am 04.04.2012 um 10:59 schrieb Ralf Nyren:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> On Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:31:24 +0200, Feldhaus, Florian
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> <florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de> <florian.feldhaus at gwdg.de> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> once again I would like to reiterate the JSON rendering.
> First a
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> short overview what Alexander and I think are the main
> points we
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> should
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> address:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> - remove all HTTP Rendering specific parts from the JSON
> rendering
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> Remember that an OCCI rendering (as currently specified)
> includes
> > > >
> > > > >>>> _both_
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> protocol and data format at the moment.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> That's only partly true. A "pure" JSON rendering can already
> exist
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> independently from the HTTP Rendering without any trouble in
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> rendering.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> No. Yes.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Probably a misunderstanding here. An OCCI Rendering is defined
> as a
> > > >
> > > > >>>> way to manipulate the Core Model. So in theory you could have 2
> > > >
> > > > >>>> different HTTP-based OCCI Renderings with different semantics
> where
> > > >
> > > > >>>> one happen to be using XML as the data format and the othe JSON
> for
> > > >
> > > > >>>> example. This is not nice but within the definition.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> So to be complete an OCCI Rendering must both define the
> protocol and
> > > >
> > > > >>>> whatever data format is used by that protocol.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> This does not prevent us from having a single OCCI HTTP Protocol
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Rendering with pluggable data formats.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> I like the idea of having a common HTTP Protocol rendering
> spec
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> which the JSON rendering could be built upon though.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> I second this and would like to move forward. Any comments on
> the
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> best strategy? Do we need to create a version 1.2 for the HTTP
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> rendering?
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> I believe so yes. It would be mostly backwards compatible
> though.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> However, the current HTTP rendering doc lacks things like e.g.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> request parameters in URL which I would say is necessary to
> have a
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> sane JSON rendering.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> I don't think so. The rendering should be independently of the
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> transport protocol. If I ask your server to send me a file by
> mail
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> containing the JSON rendering of all resources, that should
> work as
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> well.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> We are probably using different terminology here. I am
> referring to
> > > >
> > > > an
> > > >
> > > > >>>> OCCI "rendering". Your statement is 100% true for an OCCI data
> > > >
> > > > format.
> > > >
> > > > >>>> However, a data format is not enough to create an OCCI
> Rendering.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> - consider using RFC 5988 "Web Linking" for collection
> information
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> (e.g. index, next, previous,…)
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> Gary and I had an email conversation which resulted in a
> solution
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> where all info necessary for pagination would end up in the
> request
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> URL. I.e.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> basically eliminating the need for using special headers
> (such as
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> RFC 5988).
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> The request parameters to a collection simply allow you to
> specify
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> the amount of resource instances you want returned either
> _before_
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> or
> > > >
> > > > >>>> _after_
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> a specific occi.core.id.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> Do you have some examples? IMHO this should go to the revised
> HTTP
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> rendering document.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> The mail thread was on occi-wg so should be in the archives.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Agree that it would be best to put this into a 1.2 version of
> the
> > > >
> > > > HTTP
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Rendering doc.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> Examples:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> http://pastebin.com/ZK9Uf0K1 (Entities)
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> Nice, I like that you keep the "attributes" hash now ;)
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> How do you render Link attributes for the links tied to an
> OCCI
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Resource?
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> In the example you can see Links are rendered as a hash
> containing
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> href and kind. The only really necessary part is the href
> location.
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Everything
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> else is optional and could be retrieved by the client using
> separate
> > > >
> > > > >>>> HTTP
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> requests. It would also be possible to omit the hash and just
> render
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> all link hrefs in an array. To allow for a slim rendering and
> also
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> allow for additional information to be send to the client, I
> would
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> suggest that we specify a hash with at least the href and
> optional
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> all other parameters valid for the link. We could even go so
> far as
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> to use the link rendering for rendering link attributes within
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> resources.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> After many long discussions it was decided to have inline
> rendering
> > > >
> > > > of
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Link attributes in the OCCI HTTP Rendering. I think the same
> should
> > > >
> > > > >>>> apply to JSON.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> To keep the mail short, a detailed discussion can be found
> in the
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> attached text document.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> Just picking out one thread:
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> resources and links should be represented differently. The
> entry
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> "links" is unique for resources and the entries "target" and
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> "source"
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> are unique for links.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> Sounds goods. So the top-level hash of the collection format
> would
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> have one hash "resources" and another hash "links" then?
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> I mean, we still have to cover the case where the client asks
> for
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> "everything" at the top-level URL and thus gets both
> Resources and
> > > >
> > > > >>>> Links
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> in the response.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> I would suggest to have a content-type for entities. It should
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> contain a hash with "links" and "resources". Both then are
> arrays of
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> hashes.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> I rather have a single array, it plays much better with the
> > > >
> > > > collection
> > > >
> > > > >>>> concept of REST.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> In OCCI Core the attribute names should be changed from
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> occi.core.source and occi.core.target to just source and
> target,
> > > >
> > > > as
> > > >
> > > > >>>> both
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> are representing connections to other resources from within
> the
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>> OCCI model (similar to links in resources, or kind in
> entity).
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> occi.core.source and occi.core.target was named simply
> > > >
> > > > source/target
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> up until just before the OCCI HTTP Rendering doc was
> published.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> The fundamental problem here is that we have two different
> sorts of
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> "attributes".
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> 1. Attributes as part of the OCCI Core model. These include
> both
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> Entity.id, Entity.title, Resource.summary, Resource.links,
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> Link.target, Link.source, etc 2. Attributes as exposed by an
> OCCI
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> rendering. The HTTP Rendering exposes id, title, summary as
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> attributes as well as target and source.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> However the Resource.links attribute is not exposed as an
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> attribute...
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> There is no clear distinction here which IMO leads to
> confusion.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> No comments on the above?
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> Also remember that a subclass of OCCI Link may have
> Link.target
> > > >
> > > > >>>> pointing
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>> at some arbitrary external object.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> In my opinion, source and target always point to resources,
> even if
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> they lie outside the OCCI model. They contain complex data
> types
> > > >
> > > > like
> > > >
> > > > >>>>> kind or mixin and not primitive data types like id, title or
> > > >
> > > > summary.
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> So, to link to a VNC console you would have the vnc:// URL
> where? In
> > > >
> > > > a
> > > >
> > > > >>>> VNC console Resource object?
> > > >
> > > > >>>>
> > > >
> > > > >>>> /Ralf
> > > >
> > > > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > >>>> occi-wg mailing list
> > > >
> > > > >>>> occi-wg at ogf.org
> > > >
> > > > >>>> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> > > >
> > > > >>> -------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > >>> Intel Ireland Limited (Branch)
> > > >
> > > > >>> Collinstown Industrial Park, Leixlip, County Kildare, Ireland
> > > >
> > > > >>> Registered Number: E902934
> > > >
> > > > >>>
> > > >
> > > > >>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential
> material for
> > > >
> > > > >>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or
> distribution
> > > >
> > > > >>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> > > >
> > > > >>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > >
> > > > > occi-wg mailing list
> > > >
> > > > > occi-wg at ogf.org
> > > >
> > > > > https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing listocci-wg at ogf.orghttps://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> occi-wg mailing list
> occi-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/occi-wg
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/occi-wg/attachments/20120502/2632653f/attachment-0001.html>