Re: [Xen-cim] Provider Registration

[Gareth S Bestor <bestor@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I have no objections. I hadn't put in
a provider qualifier in the class mofs primarily because the CIMOM we were
using internally (OpenPegasus) didn't need them. But there is certainly
no harm adding them in, it'll improve compatibility with OpenWBEM, and
it'll probably make them more officially CIM conformant... :-) 

Likewise I have no problem changing
the provider name in each lib from "<classname>Provider"
to "<classname>". I made them different in the CM*MIStubs
mostly to help debug registration problems - ie being able to distinguish
symbols for the function table prefix vs external library name vs name
the cimom identifies the provider by. Changing everything to "<classname>"
should not cause any problems, other than perhaps making it slightly harder
to figure out what's what when things go wrong...

- Gareth

Dr. Gareth S. Bestor
IBM Linux Technology Center
M/S DES2-01
15300 SW Koll Parkway, Beaverton, OR 97006
503-578-3186, T/L 775-3186, Fax 503-578-3186

Jim Fehlig <jfehlig@xxxxxxxxxx> Sent by: xen-cim-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 04/21/2006 04:13 PM

To:        xen-cim@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx         cc:                 Subject:        [Xen-cim] Provider Registration

OK, after looking at provider-register.sh and various
packages in the 
sblim project it appears that it is common to use the provider qualifier
in class definitions.  I would like to add the qualifier to each class
definition if there are no objections.

Along the same lines, the provider name (specified in calls to macro 
CM*MIStub in the various implementation files) contains 
<ClassName>Provider causing the macro to create a function named
<ClassName>Provider_Create_InstanceMI.  OpenWBEM is expecting
the name 
to be <ClassName>_Create_InstanceMI - from the provider qualifier
I have 
specified presumably.  But the qualifier must contain the name of
library providing the instrumentation.  So I would like to remove
the 
"Provider" suffix from all calls to CM*MIStub.  This change
would also 
have to be made in the corresponding .registration files correct?  Any
objections to this change?

If there are no objections I will make these changes and figure out how
to use hg to commit them.

BTW, I talked to the OpenWBEM developers about adding a better provider
registration mechanism.  It is on their todo list.  They plan
on using 
some standard that is part of the Interop schema within CIM.  I'm
not 
familiar with this spec or its state.

Regards,
Jim

_______________________________________________
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