All,
Creating 'levels' of the PWG:PJT was not the needed response to Google
at this time (but the 'levels' may still have a need in future); so, I
decided to follow up on Michael feedback to the Google team which
represented the needed initial feedback.
Today, I 'refactored' GCP 2.0 into what I call GCP 2.PWG. It attempts
to refactor GCP 2.0 elements and values to PWG while addressing
(hopefully all or most of) the concerns Michael identified. To make a
simple mapping/comparison, I used Google's ProtoBuf notation (for those
who don't write code, sorry) which is how Google wrote GCP 2.0. There
were, I discovered, some interesting mapping changes and some
simplifications. Since I am new using ProtoBufs, there may be one or
two minor errors.
I hope that members of the Google team review and consider some of the
refactored GCP 2.0.
There is no inline or other documentation or notes but should be
readable.
A possible next step is to use the 'PWG:PJT Level 1' to add other
elements and values that may be important at this time. In addition
provide definition of terms using PWG specifications and standards.
[note: enum's in the GCP 2.PWG map directly to enum's I have made in my
c-code; so I believe the refactoring is doable at this time.]
Glen
See:
ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/GCP_20_and_GCP_2_PWG-2013.03.19%20
.pdf
<ftp://ftp.pwg.org/pub/pwg/cloud/white/GCP_20_and_GCP_2_PWG-2013.03.19
.pdf>
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.pwg.org/pipermail/cloud/attachments/20130319/6285ebf5/attachment-0002.html>