[ogsa-bes-wg] draft ESI 0.7 OGSA WSRF BP rendering

[Peter G Lane]

On Fri, 2006-04-28 at 16:39 +0100, Michel Drescher wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> 
> I'm referring to spec v0.7 in my inline comments:
> 
> On 28 Apr 2006, at 16:19, Peter G Lane wrote:
> 
> > Great start! Just a couple of comments:
> >
> > 1) I'd prefer something like "ManagedJobFactoryResourcePropeties"
> > instead of "JobFactoryRPDocument". That way everything is spelled out
> > and it's named after the full port type name.
> 
> Referring to 3) below, I would suggest  
> "JobFactoryResourcePropertiesDocument" (or  
> "JobFactoryResourcePropertyDocument"?), reconciling your and my  
> suggestions.

"JobFactoryResourcePropertiesDocument" is fine with me.

> 
> > 2) I think the unnamed complexType under the "JobFactoryRPDocument"
> > element should be named. Following my preference from #2, this is  
> > what I
> > would like to see (or something similar):
> >
> > <xsd:element name="ManagedJobFactoryResourceProperties"
> > type="tns:ManagedJobFactoryResourcePropertiesType"/>
> > <xsd:complexType name="ManagedJobFactoryResourcePropertiesType">
> > . . .
> > </xsd:complexType>
> >
> > This is primarily motivated by implementation concerns, but it's not
> > like working around broken tooling. I just don't like leaving class
> > names up to the tooling. Specifying a name explicitly usually dictates
> > what it will be seen as in the API. In addition, it mandates that any
> > reuse of the element be done via a ref (like Subscribe).
> 
> Agreed, according to the notes from 1).
> 
> > 3) The port type name is specified as "JobFactoryPortType" instead of
> > "ManagedJobFactoryPortType" from the spec. If this was something  
> > decided
> > upon in the last call I apologize.

I think we might be talking about different documents. I'm attaching
what Ian posted to GT's gram-dev mailing list. He didn't send a UML
diagram with it, so my comments are also straight from the text. Could
you attach or post a link to the document you all are using. Thanks.

Peter

> 
> I took it directly from the section headings (section 4) and not from  
> the UML picture in figure 1 (page 5)
> I guess pictures get easier out of sync with draft specifications in  
> much flux, so I preferred the section headings.
> Also, I think "ManagedJobFactory" could be misinterpreted as a  
> JobFactory that is managed which would lead to the wrong assumptions.  
> But I am probably nitpicking here.
> The point is that I have no trouble changing it, if necessary.
> 
> I attached the updated versions below.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michel
> 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3720 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060428/5a38b928/attachment.bin