[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Closing on NIM requirements





Are we now discussing the language to be used - I was under the impression when
I sent my response on not including methods
that we are still discussing requirements. Is it true that the requirements are
considered as agreed. I propose these requirements
form a basic set before we start arguing on the language.

If we are already into picking a language, I would propose considering seriously
UML which has been used in many groups including DMTF, ITU etc.

I agree with Jon that there is not always easy mapping from a high level
language like UML to
other protocol specific notations/languages. But that is to be expected and I do
not want to
pick a language that is a lowest common denominator.

As per the mail on two models one for declarative and one for methods, I do not
believe we
should go that way. The operations are not only in terms of attributes or groups
of them.
There are parameters that are in and out that are not always considered as
parameters.
We can see several such examples in the spec from ATM Forum, ITU and others.
Lakshmi Raman




Jon Saperia <saperia@mediaone.net> on 04/16/2000 06:44:26 PM

To:   Harald Tveit Alvestrand <Harald@alvestrand.no>, "Durham, David"
      <david.durham@intel.com>, "'Weiss, Walter'" <WWeiss@lucentctc.com>,
      "'nim@ops.ietf.org'" <nim@ops.ietf.org>
cc:    (bcc: Lakshmi Raman/Telcordia)
Subject:  Re: Closing on NIM requirements




on 04/16/2000 4:58 PM, Harald Tveit Alvestrand at Harald@Alvestrand.no
wrote:

> UML, from my brief acquaintance, has about half a dozen different modelling
> methods, all better at showing some properties of the system than others.
> One OO credo (or at least part of one) is that data and operations need to
> be closely bound together, because neither is understandable without the
> other; I subscribe to that.

I have a stated a preference for UML in the past. The interesting question
that this discussion begs is: if people believe LDAP and SNMP (and others)
are not able to effectively represent what is in the 'higher-level' models,
what should be done? I have mentioned a number of times that the technology
specific details, whether they be LDAP, SNMP, or anything else will always
tend to impinge on the higher layer modeling. Even in what are generally
considered to be OO languages, there are important differences. For example,
how do I do multiple inheritance in Java?  The point is not to pick on Java
or any other technology. My point is that either the modeling language be
reduced to the least common denominator - which probably nobody wants, or a
plan be put in place to bring up the infrastructure elements to the point
where they have what people feel is needed. In that case a fairly protracted
but appropriate discussion of tradeoffs would probably have to take place.

/jon