implementation of nfs head

[sunil kumar]

hi

We are in implementation of nas head. need to know whether we are following
the correct procedure of developing.

In the 60_LMI_Networking.mof file at the end we created the following
association as told in smis profile..

/*******************************
 * NAS Network PORTS Profile *
 *******************************/
[ Association, Provider("cmpi:cmpiLMI_Networking"), Version("0.1.0"),
  Description("An association between a portocolendpoint and networkport.")
]
class LMI_ProtocolDeviceSAPImplementation: CIM_DeviceSAPImplementation
{
    [ Key, Override("Antecedent"),
      Description("The instance of CIM_ProtocolEndpoint subclass "
        "representing network device.") ]
    CIM_NetworkPort REF Antecedent;

    [ Key, Override("Dependent"),
      Description("The instance of LMI_NetworkPort that represent "
        "same device as Antecedent.") ]
    CIM_ProtocolEndpoint REF Dependent;
};

[ Provider("cmpi:cmpiLMI_Networking"), Version("0.1.0"),
Description("End
point protocol") ]


we again complied and registered the mof file..

we got the new CMI_DeviseSAPImplemntaiton in src and in local/yawn..

now if this is procedure is correct we ll write the method in it..

We also have python script and cmpi in c. bit confuse ..  if any other
procedure to followed let us know. we ll follow that..

[Jan Safranek]

On 09/25/2013 11:37 AM, sunil kumar wrote:
>  hi
>  
>  We are in implementation of nas head. need to know whether we are
>  following the correct procedure of developing.
>  
>  In the 60_LMI_Networking.mof file at the end we created the following
>  association as told in smis profile..
>  
>  /*******************************
>   * NAS Network PORTS Profile *
>   *******************************/
>  [ Association, Provider("cmpi:cmpiLMI_Networking"),
> Version("0.1.0"),
>    Description("An association between a portocolendpoint and
>  networkport.") ]
>  class LMI_ProtocolDeviceSAPImplementation: CIM_DeviceSAPImplementation
>  {
>      [ Key, Override("Antecedent"),
>        Description("The instance of CIM_ProtocolEndpoint subclass "
>          "representing network device.") ]
>      CIM_NetworkPort REF Antecedent;
>  
>      [ Key, Override("Dependent"),
>        Description("The instance of LMI_NetworkPort that represent "
>          "same device as Antecedent.") ]
>      CIM_ProtocolEndpoint REF Dependent; 
Please use the right classes in associations, in this case you probably
want to associate to LMI_<something>ProcotolEndpoint. It speeds up
association traversal quite a lot.

>  };
>  
>  [ Provider("cmpi:cmpiLMI_Networking"), Version("0.1.0"),
>  Description("End point protocol") ]
>  
>  
>  we again complied and registered the mof file..
>  
>  we got the new CMI_DeviseSAPImplemntaiton in src and in local/yawn.. 
The class definition looks fine. Question is, if the NAS HEAD profile
will be part of OpenLMI-Networking, OpenLMI-Storage or a separate provider.

The code above is part of OpenLMI-Networking. In my opinion, we should
keep the Networking provider just managing network interfaces and not
storage exports.

NAS head fits more to Storage provider, as it exports local filesystems
and we already have filesystem management there. Then it needs to be
written in Python and we don't use
'Provider("cmpi:cmpiLMI_Networking")'
in Storage MOF files (the rest is fine).

Or, if you want, you may develop a new provider, let's say OpenLMI-NAS,
either in C or Python, and just implement the profile + associations to
Networking and Storage LMI_ objects where appropriate. Feel free to
'steal' any CMake or Python snippets from other providers (mind the
license though).

We do not have any fixed procedure how to develop things, just follow
our coding guidelines [1] and test guidelines [2] and send your code to
our ReviewBoard [3]. We'll help you with anything, just let us know if
you have any troubles.

[1]: https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/wiki/CodingConventions
[2]: https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/wiki/TestGuidelines
[3]: https://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/

Also, please let us know if there is something missing or misleading in
our documentation, we'll fix it. E.g. I created a ticket to improve our
README files based on your feedback:
https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/152

Jan

[sunil kumar]

thank you for your information. i ll follow according to your suggestion
..we ll let u know if any missing in your documentation...





On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 6:09 AM, Jan Safranek <jsafrane(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  On 09/25/2013 11:37 AM, sunil kumar wrote:
>  > hi
>  >
>  > We are in implementation of nas head. need to know whether we are
>  > following the correct procedure of developing.
>  >
>  > In the 60_LMI_Networking.mof file at the end we created the following
>  > association as told in smis profile..
>  >
>  > /*******************************
>  >  * NAS Network PORTS Profile *
>  >  *******************************/
>  > [ Association, Provider("cmpi:cmpiLMI_Networking"),
> Version("0.1.0"),
>  >   Description("An association between a portocolendpoint and
>  > networkport.") ]
>  > class LMI_ProtocolDeviceSAPImplementation: CIM_DeviceSAPImplementation
>  > {
>  >     [ Key, Override("Antecedent"),
>  >       Description("The instance of CIM_ProtocolEndpoint subclass "
>  >         "representing network device.") ]
>  >     CIM_NetworkPort REF Antecedent;
>  >
>  >     [ Key, Override("Dependent"),
>  >       Description("The instance of LMI_NetworkPort that represent "
>  >         "same device as Antecedent.") ]
>  >     CIM_ProtocolEndpoint REF Dependent;
>
>  Please use the right classes in associations, in this case you probably
>  want to associate to LMI_<something>ProcotolEndpoint. It speeds up
>  association traversal quite a lot.
>
>  > };
>  >
>  > [ Provider("cmpi:cmpiLMI_Networking"), Version("0.1.0"),
>  > Description("End point protocol") ]
>  >
>  >
>  > we again complied and registered the mof file..
>  >
>  > we got the new CMI_DeviseSAPImplemntaiton in src and in local/yawn..
>
>  The class definition looks fine. Question is, if the NAS HEAD profile
>  will be part of OpenLMI-Networking, OpenLMI-Storage or a separate provider.
>
>  The code above is part of OpenLMI-Networking. In my opinion, we should
>  keep the Networking provider just managing network interfaces and not
>  storage exports.
>
>  NAS head fits more to Storage provider, as it exports local filesystems
>  and we already have filesystem management there. Then it needs to be
>  written in Python and we don't use
> 'Provider("cmpi:cmpiLMI_Networking")'
>  in Storage MOF files (the rest is fine).
>
>  Or, if you want, you may develop a new provider, let's say OpenLMI-NAS,
>  either in C or Python, and just implement the profile + associations to
>  Networking and Storage LMI_ objects where appropriate. Feel free to
>  'steal' any CMake or Python snippets from other providers (mind the
>  license though).
>
>  We do not have any fixed procedure how to develop things, just follow
>  our coding guidelines [1] and test guidelines [2] and send your code to
>  our ReviewBoard [3]. We'll help you with anything, just let us know if
>  you have any troubles.
>
>  [1]: https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/wiki/CodingConventions
>  [2]: https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/wiki/TestGuidelines
>  [3]: https://reviewboard-openlmi.rhcloud.com/
>
>  Also, please let us know if there is something missing or misleading in
>  our documentation, we'll fix it. E.g. I created a ticket to improve our
>  README files based on your feedback:
>  https://fedorahosted.org/openlmi/ticket/152
>
>  Jan
>