[Fiware-iot] [TM Splitting] ConfMan first pass

[t.elsaleh at surrey.ac.uk]

Hello Fermin, Tobias,

With regards to the API wiki pages, USURREY will need another page for interfaces specific to the IoT Semantic GE, and to avoid redundancy in the documentation we will point to the original TM NB/SB API pages, since we plan to support it as well.

Best regards,
Tarek



From: Elsaleh T Mr (Electronic Eng)
Sent: 17 December 2012 11:03
To: 'Fermín Galán Márquez'; Tobias Jacobs
Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: RE: [Fiware-iot] [TM Splitting] ConfMan first pass

Hello Fermin,

With regards to the "Discovery Engine", which we now call "IoT Semantic Discovery GE", I really don't think that this should completely come under ConfMan, but rather it should have its own features and pages, at least at the moment.

If there is significant redundancy in the text, then we can see how to merge the features of both GEs.

Best regards,
Tarek


From: fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu [mailto:fiware-iot-bounces at lists.fi-ware.eu] On Behalf Of Fermín Galán Márquez
Sent: 14 December 2012 20:37
To: Tobias Jacobs
Cc: fiware-iot at lists.fi-ware.eu
Subject: [Fiware-iot] [TM Splitting] ConfMan first pass

Hi,

I have done a first pass of the ConfMan split pages and, although it is not completely done, I think I have done a significant progress. Some doubts and issues have arisen during the process. Detailed comments follow.

Architecture

 *   Sequence diagrams are missing. I will complete this part next week, probably using Visio (given that I don't have proficiency with Enterprise Architect... I don't know even if it is a free tool :) @NEC: if you are also planning to redo the diagrams for IoTBroker maybe is a good idea to use the same tool so they have an homogeneous appearance. I will send you the .vsd file when I finished, so you can copy-paste and help you to make your part (of course, if you prefer using Enterprise Architect for that is also ok with me).
 *   I think that the part regarding "Enhanced Associations" is common to IoT Broker and ConfigMan components, so I have included a link from ConfMan wiki page to IoT Broker wiki page, where I see you are describing it (I think it is better linking that copying the same in the two pages). What do you think?

Open Spec

Nothing relevant to say.

Nothbound/Southbound interfaces

Similarly to IoT Broker I think that I don't need this pages for ConfMan, as it is redundant with the Architecture description. In fact, ConfMan has a Northbound interface towards Pub/Sub Context Broker and a Southbound interface towards IoT agents, but it also exposes an interface towards the IoT Broker that would be difficult to classify in the strict Noth/South distinction. So the North/South distinction breaks in this case.

Materializing

Done, using the same "strategy" that NEC has used for IoTBroker (i.e. using the corresponding issue name from ThingManagement GE renaming ThingManagement -> <name of the new GE>). As "sanity check" we should check at the end that UNION(IoTBroker_issues, ConfMan_issues) = ThingManagement_issues (otherwise, we are missing something).

However, I think that this strategy could have a problem (that I described in the "Doubts/Issues" section below).

Unit Test Plan

My split includes tests 2-5 (probably we unify this with the tests in http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/Publish/Subscribe_GE_-_SAMSON_Broker_-_Unit_Testing_Plan, given that, at the end, TID's Pub/Sub Context Broker implementation and ConfMan are the same piece of code). IoT Broker split includes test 6.

Note that, with this splitting, Test 1 is lost. AFAIK, this test is related with NGSI10 so I think it should be included in the IoT Broker split. However, if you think that that doesn't make sense (e.g. it is an obsolete test), I'm ok with losing it.

Roadmap

I have included the entry for ConfigMan in the table for 3Q2013. However, I can not provide any particular entry at this point in time. Currently, our technical work is focused in providing the component with a scalable architecture able to cope with a massive amount of data context information. I think that in 1Q2013 it would be clearer what we can deliver in 3Q2013.

Doubts/Issues:

 *   In materializing page (https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/Materializing_Internet_of_Things_%28IoT%29_Services_Enablement_in_FI-WARE.split) we have set the epic/features links for IoT Broker and ConfMan just renaming the "ThingManagment" token to the name of the new GE (e.g.: "FIWARE.Epic.IoT.Backend.ThingsManagement.SubscribeNotify" -> "FIWARE.Epic.IoT.Backend.IoTBroker.SubscribeNotify"). However, we are only renaming the link, not the actual page (e.g. http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.Epic.IoT.Backend.ThingsManagement.SubscribeNotify), which is still using the "old" nomenclature. Currently, there are 27 epic/features associated to ThingManagement GE. A possible solution would be:
    *   Create 27 "clones" of these pages (e.g. the clone for http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.Epic.IoT.Backend.ThingsManagement.SubscribeNotify would be http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.Epic.IoT.Backend.IoTBroker.SubscribeNotify) and edit the clone to adapt it to the new GEs. NEC could do this for issues lying under IoT Boker, TID could do this for issues lying under ConfMan.
       *   Note I understand we cannot just rename/move http://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fiware/index.php/FIWARE.Epic.IoT.Backend.ThingsManagement.SubscribeNotify to the new name as far as we left the ThingManagement GE "for the record" as it was a GE in the Release 1.
    *   Rename the 27 issues in the trac to the new names. Again, NEC could do this for issues lying under IoT Boker, TID could do this for issues lying under ConfMan.
 *   We have been talking about considering the Discovery Engine as a GE implementation of ConfMan. In that case, it makes no sense to have aney *.split.DiscoveryEngine page at https://forge.fi-ware.eu/plugins/mediawiki/wiki/fi-ware-private/index.php/Things_Management_GE_splitting_page (I only makes sense if DiscoveryEngine would be a GE itself). They information regarding the DiscoveryEngine should be integrated in the ConfMan GE pages (or sections, in the case of Materializing and Technical roadmap). What do you think?

Any feedback, comment or proposal to improve is really welcome.

Thanks!

Best regards,

------
Fermín

________________________________

Este mensaje se dirige exclusivamente a su destinatario. Puede consultar nuestra política de envío y recepción de correo electrónico en el enlace situado más abajo.
This message is intended exclusively for its addressee. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at:
http://www.tid.es/ES/PAGINAS/disclaimer.aspx
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.fiware.org/private/old-fiware-iot/attachments/20121219/977b9a31/attachment.html>