Web-Enabled DDS:
Revised Submission
MARS – Minneapolis, MN – June 2010
Presenter: Rick Warren, RTI
Submitting POCs:
 Ange...
Specification Process
RFP issued: September 2009 (San Antonio)
Initial submissions: March 2010 (Jacksonville)
 PrismTech
...
Progress Since Initial Submissions
Proposals consolidated into single document
 Alternatives appear side by side
 No att...
Differences Among Proposals: PIM
Object model proposed by RTI+eProsima
 Drastically simplified DDS model
 Procedural sty...
Differences Among Proposals: PSMs
SOAP PSM
 Proposed by
RTI+eProsima, Thales
REST PSM
 Proposed by all
submitters
Other ...
TODO: Platform-Independent Model
Reconcile basic object model
 Q: How much of DDS should it expose?
 Tradeoff: Ease of u...
TODO: Object Representation
XML Data Representation for samples
 Per DDS-XTypes
 Proposed by RTI+eProsima and Thales
JSO...
TODO: Platform-Specific Mappings
General questions:
 Q: How much should PSMs resemble each other? PIM?
 Q: Must have equ...
TODO: Platform-Specific Mappings
SOAP
 It’s a jungle (of standards) out there.
 Q: SOAP version?
 1.2 is current standa...
TODO: Compliance Points
Q: Which PSMs required?
Q: LwCCM required?
Q: Security required?
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights...
Summary
Initial submissions contain strong ideas
 Focused on different aspects
…but still many holes to fill
Rick’s perso...
Q & A
Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 12
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Web-Enabled DDS: Revised Submission

795 views

Published on

Presentation to the OMG's MARS Task Force in June, 2010 on the proposed specification "Web-Enabled DDS."

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
795
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Web-Enabled DDS: Revised Submission

  1. 1. Web-Enabled DDS: Revised Submission MARS – Minneapolis, MN – June 2010 Presenter: Rick Warren, RTI Submitting POCs:  Angelo Corsaro, PrismTech: angelo.corsaro@prismtech.com  Hugues Vincent, Thales: hugues.vincent@thalesgroup.com  Rick Warren, RTI: rick.warren@rti.com document number: mars/10-06-02
  2. 2. Specification Process RFP issued: September 2009 (San Antonio) Initial submissions: March 2010 (Jacksonville)  PrismTech  RTI and eProsima, joint  Thales Revised submission: June 2010 (Minneapolis)  All submitters, joint  mars/10-05-03 Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 2
  3. 3. Progress Since Initial Submissions Proposals consolidated into single document  Alternatives appear side by side  No attempt at reconciliation yet Submitters’ meeting scheduled this week Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 3
  4. 4. Differences Among Proposals: PIM Object model proposed by RTI+eProsima  Drastically simplified DDS model  Procedural style Object model proposed by Thales  Somewhat simplified DDS model  DDS LwCCM model  OO/CRUD-oriented hybrid style Access-control, session models proposed by RTI+eProsima Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 4
  5. 5. Differences Among Proposals: PSMs SOAP PSM  Proposed by RTI+eProsima, Thales REST PSM  Proposed by all submitters Other PSMs (e.g. RSS, Atom, XMPP)  Nothing proposed yet  Thales may provide RSS and/or Atom later  Other contributions welcome Follow naturally from PIMs Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 5
  6. 6. TODO: Platform-Independent Model Reconcile basic object model  Q: How much of DDS should it expose?  Tradeoff: Ease of use vs. expressiveness  Q: Object-oriented vs. resource-oriented?  Tradeoff: Ease of SOAP mapping vs. REST mapping Layer DDS for LwCCM  Q: To what extent is it alternative vs. supplemental?  Q: What is relation to non-DDS LwCCM ports, connectors? Integrate session management, access control  Q: How to isolate users from one another?  Prevent unauthorized access  Prevent undesirable interference  Q: How to integrate with existing standards/practices?  e.g. WS-Security for SOAP, OpenID for REST Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 6
  7. 7. TODO: Object Representation XML Data Representation for samples  Per DDS-XTypes  Proposed by RTI+eProsima and Thales JSON Data Representation for samples  Proposed by all  Valuable for JavaScript/AJAX apps  Not yet formally defined  Q: Should we keep it here, or move to DS-XTypes? XML Entity Representation  Not formally proposed yet, but maybe needed  Q: When ‘PUT’ting new entity with REST, what is resource representation?  Just QoS (as proposed) insufficient: what about e.g. content filters? Topic names?  Q: REST-specific, or for SOAP too? Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 7
  8. 8. TODO: Platform-Specific Mappings General questions:  Q: How much should PSMs resemble each other? PIM?  Q: Must have equal expressiveness?  e.g. Does same notification mechanism make sense for SOAP vs. RSS?  Q: Data representation orthogonal?  e.g. JSON payload in SOAP message? Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 8
  9. 9. TODO: Platform-Specific Mappings SOAP  It’s a jungle (of standards) out there.  Q: SOAP version?  1.2 is current standard; 1.1 much better supported  Q: Relationship to current WS-* standards?  e.g. WS-Eventing, WS-Notification  e.g. WS-Security REST  Q: How resource-oriented vs. procedural?  With right PIM, many controversies may be stylistic Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 9
  10. 10. TODO: Compliance Points Q: Which PSMs required? Q: LwCCM required? Q: Security required? Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 10
  11. 11. Summary Initial submissions contain strong ideas  Focused on different aspects …but still many holes to fill Rick’s personal intuition:  Synthesis won’t be copy-paste from one proposal or another  Will differ from all its 3 parents  Get PIM right + get mapping style right = PSMs will follow naturally Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 11
  12. 12. Q & A Copyright © 2010 RTI - All rights Reserved 12

×