Ira,
That was pretty much the gist of the question I ask last Friday. As with the schedule actions, there are other places where perhaps the distinction between the agent and the managed entity should be made. First, let me seek to confirm that we have agreement on the following:
1. Since we have added the TargetObjects parameter to all schedule actions that relate to managed objects (as distinguished from agent actions such as UpdateSchedule), it can be assumed that a single schedule may refer to many managed objects. Further, since the specific actions identify the managed entity, the schedule itself is agent oriented.
2. We agreed that the parameters "Source URI" and "Target URI" refer to the Agent and Manager respectively in operations and actions executed by the Agent and that these parameters refer to Manager and Agent respectively in operations executed by the Manager. But that the term TargetURI must not be interpreted to refer to the managed entity. Rather, the new term TargetObject will always refer to the managed entity. (you do not seem to agree with this in your answer to Harry)
3. The SendReport and SendAlert Operations from a given agent may deal with multiple manageable entities, and these entities are not identified by the Target URI term. Rather, they must be identified by a TargetObject term in the Send Report or Send Alert Operation (which is not now included) or e4ach report or alert entry must include a TargetObject term. I may just be missing it but I do not see this terms in either the report or event schemas.
If indeed, a given SendReport (or SendAlert) conveys the results of the atomic action for a single one of the ActionTargetURI values, I think we need to add the TargetObjects parameter to this operation. Alternatively, if each report or alert entry includes the TargetObject, then a given operation can handle multiple managed entities.
But I think we need to distinguish the agent from the managed entity.
Bill Wagner
-----Original Message-----
From: McDonald, Ira [mailto:imcdonald at sharplabs.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 3:31 PM
To: 'Harry Lewis'; wims at pwg.org
Subject: RE: WIMS> Prototype questions
Hi Harry,
My intent all along (I guess not well-documented) is that a given
SendReport conveys the results of the atomic action for a single
one of the ActionTargetURI values (identified by the parameter
'sourceURI' and also the element ReportSourceURI embedded
in the Report object instance).
Note that the Source URI identifies EITHER a WIMS Agent
(such as the proxy running the Schedule) OR a legacy agent
(such as the SNMP URI of a legacy printer). That's why the
source is NOT implicit in the originator of the connection.
Does that help?
Cheers,
- Ira
PS - A refinement would be to have SendReport send a SET
of Report object instances (one or more), one for each target.
Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect)
Blue Roof Music / High North Inc
PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839
phone: +1-906-494-2434
email: imcdonald at sharplabs.com
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wims at pwg.org [mailto:owner-wims at pwg.org]On Behalf Of Harry Lewis
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 1:09 AM
To: wims at pwg.org
Subject: WIMS> Prototype questions
I've run into the following question
When the schedule specifies more than one ActionTargetURI, how do we
differentiate (in ReportRequestedElements) which ReportElementAny
corresponds to which ActionTargetURI?
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM STSM
Chairman - IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group
http://www.pwg.org
IBM Printing Systems
http://www.ibm.com/printers
303-924-5337
----------------------------------------------