Re: [Xen-cim] CMPI support of arrays in OUT params

[Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Johanssen wrote:
[snip]
> > Frankly, the plural versions suck anyway :-).  I came to this conclusion
> >     
> while
>   
> > implementing AddResourceSettings. Implementation is difficult,
> >     
> particularly
>   
> > handling errors.  Imagine successfully adding 2 resources but failing on
> >     
> the
>   
> > 3rd.  Do you fail the whole thing and attempt to unwind (and perhaps fail
> >     
> doing
>   
> > that!)? Or do you proceed forward and indicate half failure?  I don't
> >     
> like it
>   
> > and considered the 'one-at-a-time' approach before hitting the 'output
> >     
> array' >
>   
> > issue.
> >
> > I will proceed with this approach unless (strongly) convinced otherwise.
> >
> > Jim
> >     
> Jim,
>
> in DMTF SVPC we modelled that way
> to enable the client to pass in multiple
> logically related requests in one step,
> that either succeeds or fails as a whole.
> Admittedly that makes things more difficult
> for the implementation, but consider that
> with the single step approach you leave
> the responsiblity for cleanup to the client,
> and if he does not care about that responsibility,
> then you end up with inconsistent system definitions.
>   
Understood, and don't take my rant personally :-).  I recall the 
conversations and remember Nihar's objection to the original methods.  I 
think the current methods are a great improvement but still consider 
them a PIA from implementation standpoint :-).  I have them implemented 
but committed the singular versions to our repo due to the CMPI issue.  
Need to get that resolved before officially supporting the defined methods.
BTW, what do you think of the singular versions?  Don't know if there is 
too much overlap with the existing methods, but might be nice to have 
them as well.  I could image most implementations having the single case 
and just repeatedly calling it from the multiple resource case.  Might 
be useful to expose the single case as well.
> Of course the issue with cmpi needs to be addressed.
>   
Yep.

Regards,
Jim
> Michael
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-cim mailing list
> Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim
>   
_______________________________________________
Xen-cim mailing list
Xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-cim