Re: CIM association dilemma

Thanks so much Kirk. I appreciate your input. I will do more looking in that
area. Your explanation is very good!

Best,
Kamal

On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 10:24 PM, Kirk Augustin <[email protected]>wrote:

> I think you are looking at this as more complicated than it really is.
>
> It is the client that decides which association class to use when creating
> instances, or to access later.
> The cimserver has no decisions to make at all, because it is the client
> that does all that.
> Whether the client uses the AB class or the A1B class it up to it.
> Once the convention has been established, then it is up to the client to
> remain consistent.
> However, I don't really see the need for the more specific A1B association
> class, once you have the more general one?
> Sometimes it is good to have very specific association classes, if the
> class otherwise would have so many instances that a search would take too
> long.
> But this is really a question of optimization, based on volume.
>
> To make a real world example, lets assume A1 ... An are car parts, and B
> is/are different car models.
> Then association AB would be the parts of a particular model, and there
> would be an instance for each part, per model.
> But there is no reason why you could not also have an A1B association for
> engine to particular models.
> It could be there may be a half dozen optional engines, and you might want
> to find that out without having to search all the thousands of possible
> parts.  The existence of A1B does not preclude the use of AB for engines, if
> you want to as well.
> The most important thing is to implement the convention, as established by
> or in a profile.
>
> It is best to remember the basis for CIM is a generic relational database,
> not something complex really.
>
> Kirk  Augustin
> Portland, OR
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* kamal jeera <[email protected]>
> *To:* [email protected]
> *Sent:* Fri, July 9, 2010 5:41:56 PM
> *Subject:* CIM association dilemma
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> I have this situation
>
> class A1:CIM_ManagedElement
> {
> }
>
> class A2:CIM_ManagedElement
> {
> }
> ....so on upto n classes
>
> class An:CIM_ManagedElement
> {
> }
>
> class B
> {
> }
>
> [Association class]
> class AB
> {
> CIM_ManagedElement REF Antecedent;
> B REF Dependent
> }
>
> [Association class]
> class A1B
> {
>     A1 REF Antecedent;
>     B REF Dependent
> }
>
> No AB association provider handles all A1,A2...An classes associations with
> class B
>
> Now, just for A1 class, instead of AB association, I would like to handle
> by A1B association provider.
>
>
> I was wondering, how CIMSERVER will handle when cimclient request  A1
> related data from B , given that it has one generalized association AB[where
> A1 is part of it] and one specific association A1B.
> which one CIMSERVER calls? does this dependent on the order in root/cimv2?
>
> any help on this guys please.......it is bit critical  to me....
>