So if we were to use Actions, would we still want to make teardown Plans available?
Perhaps like this: * The result contains an oslc:action link to an Action. * The Action contains an oslc:usage property with a well-defined oslc-auto value (e.g. oslc_auto:teardown). * The consumer can POST to that Action URL to perform the teardown. * The provider may include a link from the Action to a Plan that can do the same thing. (I don't know what this would be called without including "automationPlan" in the name. Maybe simply "seeAlso" or some form of "related"/"relation" term?) * The provider may include an indication of the Action's requiredness (oslc_auto:required with range boolean?) * (The consumer can perform a GET on the Action to see the above two properties, or the provider could include it inline in the Result. However, even if it is still inline, it cannot be an anonymous node as it has to provide the URL on which to perform the POST). * The provider includes some indication on the deployment Plan that a teardown Action is available on the Result. e.g. oslc_auto:actionOnResult pointing to a copy of the Action, but which cannot receive POSTs and either does not contain a link to a plan, or contains a link to a parameterised plan, should any consumers want to consume it in a provider-specific way. (This could be an inline anonymous node, as it does not need a URI to POST to). I don't like this "two ways of doing things". If we wanted to go with the POST on the Action approach, which admittedly is simpler for the consumer, it adds an additional pattern for the provider to work with. If the provider wanted to use Plans, and we allowed both, then I would still want the Action approach to be required, so that consumers don't have to inspect and determine which is the correct approach to use. So I'm still leaning on the side of not using Actions, but I'm not completely against it. Martin From: John Arwe <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Date: 29/08/2013 18:25 Subject: Re: [Oslc-Automation] Reusing Cm's Actions for teardown/operations Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> One of my comments to the proposers, in my occasional role as peanut gallery Core member, was the RPC-ish nature of the example. I suggested that it should just be a naked POST (no parameters); if a URI context is needed, the implementation can handle that transparently to the client via mechanisms like encoding it as a URI query parameter *within* the (opaque, to clients) action URI. Steve S seemed to agree, but I think revision of those pages is bottlenecked behind Sam P's paternity leave. The latter I think aligns exactly with what we discussed in terms of :teardown on Result resources. I realize it needs an example probably for anyone else to follow it, which is one thing I'm trying to get cranked out this week. Best Regards, John Voice US 845-435-9470 BluePages Tivoli OSLC Lead - Show me the Scenario From: Martin P Pain <[email protected]> To: [email protected], Oslc-Automation <[email protected]>, Date: 08/29/2013 12:17 PM Subject: [Oslc-Automation] Reusing Cm's Actions for teardown/operations Sent by: "Oslc-Automation" <[email protected]> Having had another look at CM's Action resources, [1] I don't think they would be suitable for the use that we're discussing, as they define that to execute them you POST to the URL (resource) that is contained in the property on the resource that will be affected by the action, including the URI of that resource in the POST body. While in theory we could use this approach, it doesn't reflect what we've been discussing so far. Does anyone feel strongly that we should try and reuse this? I don't. Martin [1] http://open-services.net/wiki/change-management/Specification-3.0/#Resource_Action Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU _______________________________________________ Oslc-Automation mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net _______________________________________________ Oslc-Automation mailing list [email protected] http://open-services.net/mailman/listinfo/oslc-automation_open-services.net Unless stated otherwise above: IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598. Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
