Last Update Sunday, June 03, 2001 09:03 PM
|0.8||2 June 2001||KS||Partly done|
The following is a discussion document to form the basis for deciding if a more flexible interface for providers would be logical
The clear requirement is that in the future we will be required to support multiple language bindings for Pegasus for several reasons:
Thus we expect to see multiple language bindings.
It also becomes clear that even in C++ there may be demands for multiple types of interfaces although this is not yet clear. Thus, for example, we today have an interface the incorporates all of the CIM Operations into one Interface Class (provider). There is a demand now to create several interfaces that breaks the CIM Operations into multiple groups probably by object type (Instance, property, method, association, Indication). In this model, each interface would implement the methods associated with its object (get, set, create, etc.). To implement an provider for more than one type of these interfaces, the provider would have to implement the different interfaces.
Both of these models have logic and it is not clear that one or the other is universally better. While the majority of the users will probably use the multiple interface approach, we need not change the existing approach or remove it. It can be kept as a separate provider interface.
There is also the consideration we must give to migration and change in the future. It is a serious question how we can protect existing providers from change and at the same time migrate the the environment to match future requirements and changes.
The proposal is that we implement a provider interface module as a separate entity -- separate interface modules. Each interface module would implement a set of interfaces. We would keep a core interface in the Core Pegasus (probably similar to the existing interface with the general changes proposed) and to implement any other interface, Provider Interface modules would perform the transforms between the "base interface" and other interfaces.
We would define the rules for how we create a provider interface module. A new provider interface would be created as a separate entity and installed as a separate module (typically a shared library in those environments that support shared libraries).
NOTE: Caldera is implementing something similar in the Caldera OpenWBEM and they have currently chosen to implement it using the provider registration.
In fact, this technique is much more general in that it does not require anything special in the provider, simply knowledge from the registration of which interface to call.
I propose that we use something similar and further that we propose that a field be incorporated into the provider registration classes to build this into the next generation of provider registration being defined now within the Interop Group.
Our presumption is that this will separate the writing of provider language bindings and other interfaces from the Pegasus core and allow these interfaces to be created separatly. This will further help organize the tasks of creating a modular environment for Pegasus.
The module interfaces will be defined on a class, method, or property basis. Each class/method/property could go to a different provider interface. One of the questions is the technique we use to pick a particular interface for a particular provider. Before we issue the first Operation request to the provider we must know what interface we need to pass through.
Since the interface must be known when you get the first request for the provider and try to initialize the provider, this information cannot come from the provider at initialization unless we implement one single known interface to the provider. In effect we do that today with the Initialize. The required interface module could be defined through this interface.
An alternative would be to define the particular interface through the registration of the provider. Today that registration is through the provider qualifier. In the future it will be through the registration class for the provider.
NOTE: Caldera modified the current Provider Qualifier to add a field which identifies the provider interface. A new provider interface can be added to the CIMOM by simply creating a shared library that creates a Provider Interface object object a. The format of the provider qualifier that the CIMOM understands is "[interface id]::[interface specific text]". The "interface id" is used by the provider interface multi-plexor to identify the provider interface that can supply the provider. Thus, their compiled in provider interface is "cimom::provider id" and the C++ interface "c++::provider id".
The third possible technique is to start the provider registration class now and use that as the means to define the interface.
The first technique ( getting information back at initialize from the provider about its interface) simply will not work because we cannot guanatee the provider will have the correct form of interface for initialize. In some cases, this may be specific to the provider interface. Therefore, our choice is either the provider qualifier or starting the provider registration class. I suggest that for the moment, the provider qualifier is by far the easiest and can be implemented now.
The "interface specific text" is given to the provider interface once it is found, so it can use it to find the appropriate provider.
The only component within the CIMOM that deals directly with provider interfaces is the provider manager (ProviderTable today). NOTE: We will change the name at some point of the ProviderTable to ProviderManager. The provider manager is the provider interface multiplexor.
The functions we need:
1. Find the interface modules. It may be logical to load these all at startup rather than loading each one when one of its corresponding providers is loaded.
2. Initialization function for the interface module. Each interface module must be initialized at its startup.
3. The decision process to determine which interface module to call for each operation.
---END OF DOCUMENT--