[Fiware-ngsi] FW: NGSI - 9

[Martin Bauer]

Hi all,

I think one important point is that having a component that only implements NGSI-9 would have a lot of unused resources
in the case of a single tree and at least the Configuration Management is such a component. I think this might be
confusing to the user. Therefore, I support Tobias vote for having two separate trees.

Best regards,

Martin

------------------------------------------
Dr. Martin Bauer
Senior Researcher
NEC Europe Ltd.
NEC Laboratories Europe
Software & Services Research Division
Kurfürsten-Anlage 36
D-69115 Heidelberg
Tel: +49/ (0)6221/4342-168
Fax: +49/ (0)6221/4342-155
E-Mail: Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu<mailto:Martin.Bauer at neclab.eu>
http://www.nw.neclab.eu<http://www.nw.neclab.eu/>

*************************************************************
NEC Europe Limited
Registered Office: NEC House, 1 Victoria Road, London W3 6BL
Registered in England 2832014

From: fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Tobias Jacobs
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2012 4:35 PM
To: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest); fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: Re: [Fiware-ngsi] FW: NGSI - 9

Hi all,
In order to come to a final decision (and not bother non-interested WP5 members) I suggest that every interested partner votes until the end of this week for one of both possibilities.
Then we can continue with our work on the binding document from next week onwards.

Here are the votes received so far:
A single resource tree: NSN
Separate resource trees: NEC, Telefonica (correct me if I am wrong)

Why have only one resource tree for both NGSI-9 and 10?

-          Simpler indeed. A generic developer may get confused on the creation of the same resource structure twice.

-          The various HTTP verbs may not collide as dedicated subresources can be introduced. The resource structure is just convenience after all, we can change it the way we like. And the non-convenience methods will not collide as they are different.

Why have a dedicated resource structure for NGSI-9 and 10

-          More clear separation of concerns - experience shows that often people are confused about the difference between the two interfaces.

-          There are hardly any components in FI-WARE that expose both interfaces anyway.

-          It creates more interdependence between both bindings, and this potentially makes the process of defining the bindings more complicated.

-          There is no concrete proposal yet about how to add the NGSI-9 operations into the existing NGSI-10 resource structure, so it is not clear how difficult that will be (maybe this is not the strongest argument).

From: Bisztray, Denes (NSN - HU/Budapest) [mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com]<mailto:[mailto:denes.bisztray at nsn.com]>
Sent: Dienstag, 29. Mai 2012 15:03
To: Tobias Jacobs; fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Subject: RE: [Fiware-ngsi] FW: NGSI - 9

Dear All,

As a generic answer, whatever the outcome of this decision will be, NSN is happy to implement it.
However to give my to cents, I'd go strongly towards the one resource tree approach for two reasons:

1.       Simpler indeed. A generic developer may get confused on the creation of the same resource structure twice

2.       The various HTTP verbs may not collide as dedicated subresources can be introduced. The resource structure is just convenience after all, we can change it the way we like. And the non-convenience methods will not collide as they are different.

Best,
Dénes

From: fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu> [mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu]<mailto:[mailto:fiware-ngsi-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu]> On Behalf Of ext Tobias Jacobs
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 11:45 AM
To: fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu<mailto:fiware-ngsi at lists.fi-ware.eu>
Subject: [Fiware-ngsi] FW: NGSI - 9

(apologies to everybody receiving this twice)

Dear NGSI-interested people,

We are more than late with the definition of a binding for OMA-NGSI 9.

There is one fundamental question we need to settle before going into the details: Should the resource structure be the integrated into the NGSI-10 resource structure, or should NGSI-9 have its separated resource structure?

Why have only one resource tree for both NGSI-9 and 10?

-          Simpler

Why have a dedicated resource structure for NGSI-9 and 10

-          More clear separation of concerns

-          There are hardly any components in FI-WARE that expose both interfaces anyway.

Personally I am a bit more in favor of the second option, but not too strictly. Please feel free to convince me ;-)

Best
Tobias
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/fiware-ngsi/attachments/20120529/1368f9c5/attachment.html>