Re: Getting incomplete object path

Ok, I agree with what you are saying, it might be optimizing on the
ObjectPath part, as getInstance takes the ObjectPath as an argument. We can
then update the instance's object path with the one we have. Need to
investigate more on this front. I will post same in EMC forums will check
what their developers have to say.
Thank You all for the help. [?]


On 18 April 2012 22:35, Kirk Augustin <[email protected]> wrote:

> I don't remember, but I would have expected key-pairs.
> But when getInstance is called, the key-pairs are passed in, so perhaps it
> could be rationalized that one already has them?
> Sorry, but I have been doing mostly Windows WBEM lately, so can't just
> easily try it to see.
>
> Kirk Augustin
> 11821 NW McNamee Rd
> Portland, OR 97231
>
> HM: 503-289-4356
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Pranav S <[email protected]>
> *To:* Kirk Augustin <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Devchandra Leishangthem <[email protected]>; "
> [email protected]" <[email protected]>; Venkateswara R
> Puvvada <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 9:40 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Getting incomplete object path
>
> I agree on namespace, But what about the Key-Pairs?
> " A key is a property or set of properties used to uniquely identify an
> instance of a class. Key properties are marked with the KEY qualifier. "
>
> I do not see key pairs either in my instance Object path. After priting it
> all that I see is Class Name, no key pairs, weird.
> I see key-pair values in class mof.
>
> On 18 April 2012 20:01, Kirk Augustin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> I am not sure, but I believe there is optional behavior.
> Consider the section I made 12 pt and bold below.
>
> { ...
> public class *CIMObjectPath*extends java.lang.Objectimplements java.io<http://java.io.Se>
> .Serializable
> Path to the specified CIM class or CIM instance or CIM qualifier. The CIM
> object path is a reference to CIM elements. It is only valid in context of
> an active connection to a CIM object manager on a host. In order to
> uniquely identify a given object on a host, it includes the namespace,
> object name, and keys (if the object is an instance). The namespace is
> taken to be relative to the namespace that the CIMClient is currently
> connected to. A key is a property or set of properties used to uniquely
> identify an instance of a class. Key properties are marked with the KEY
> qualifier.
> For example, the object path:
> \\myserver\Root\cimv2\Solaris_ComputerSystem.Name=mycomputer:
> CreationClassName=Solaris_ComputerSystem
> has two parts:
>
>    - \\myserver\Root\cimv2 - The default CIM namespace on host myserver.
>    - Solaris_ComputerSystem.Name=mycomputer,
>    CreationClassName=Solaris_ComputerSystem - A specific Solaris Computer
>    System object in the default namespace on host myserver. This Solaris
>    computer system is uniquely identified by two key property values in the
>    format (key property = value):
>
>
>    - Name=mycomputer
>    - CreationClassName=Solaris_ComputerSystem
>
> ... }
>
>
> http://wbemservices.sourceforge.net/javadoc/api.1109/javax/wbem/cim/CIMObjectPath.html
>
> http://wbemservices.sourceforge.net/javadoc/api.1109/javax/wbem/cim/CIMObjectPath.html
>
> Kirk Augustin
> 11821 NW McNamee Rd
> Portland, OR 97231
>
> HM: 503-289-4356
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Pranav S <[email protected]>
> *To:* Kirk Augustin <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Devchandra Leishangthem <[email protected]>; "
> [email protected]" <[email protected]>; Venkateswara R
> Puvvada <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 18, 2012 5:27 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Getting incomplete object path
>
> Exactly Kirk, Bang on target.  ..!!
>
> I am not getting namespace and key-pair values in object path when I print
> the CIMInstance' object path. I see only class name of the instance.
> Is it expected behaviour?
>
>
> On 18 April 2012 09:30, Kirk Augustin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> That was the confusion I had at first as well.
> As you say, enumerateInstances and EnumerateInstanceNames must not return
> the same, or else there would be no point in having both.
> But now I understand that he was comparing what is return by
> enumerateInstances, with what is returned by first using EnumerateInstanceNames
> and then using getInstance on each item in the names list.
> And I think he is saying the properties are all there in what is returned,
> but not the server namespace.
>
> Kirk Augustin
> 11821 NW McNamee Rd
> Portland, OR 97231
>
> HM: 503-289-4356
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Devchandra Leishangthem <[email protected]>
> *To:* Pranav S <[email protected]>
> *Cc:* Kirk Augustin <[email protected]>; "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]>; Venkateswara R Puvvada <[email protected]>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2012 8:38 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: Getting incomplete object path
>
> They are rather not equal. If they are equal, why do we need both
> enumerateInstances and EnumerateInstanceNames, when only one is sufficient.
> As being mentioned in the mail chain by Kirk and Hwang.
>
> class Person {
>   [key]String name;
>   Uint32 age;
> }
>
> InstanceName:-
>   nameSpace:/Person.name=Pranav ==> This will give enough info to locate
> the instance in the repository. But this itselt is different from Instance
> Person
> {
> name=Pranav;
> age=x;
> };
> where x is some unsinged int;
>
> Warm Regards
> D>L> Meetei
> IBM India System and Technology Lab
> EGL -D,Bangalore, India
>
>
>
> From:        Pranav S <[email protected]>
> To:        Kirk Augustin <[email protected]>,
> Cc:        Venkateswara R Puvvada/India/IBM@IBMIN, "
> [email protected]" <[email protected]>
> Date:        04/17/2012 10:46 PM
> Subject:        Re: Getting incomplete object path
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> Small correction, I should have used CIMInstance,
>
> Array<CIMInstance> enumerateInstances()  == {
>
>         Array<CIMObjectPath> instaNames = enumerateInstanceNames();
>                                       Array<CIMInstance> compInstanace[i];
>                                       for(i=0; i<instaNames.size(), i++)
>                                           compInstanace[i] =
> getInstance(instanceNames[i]));
>                                       }
>
>
> On 17 April 2012 22:40, Pranav S <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>>
> wrote:
> Hey Kirk,
> Pegasus::enumerateInstances should be equal to
> Pegasus::enumerateInstanceNames and running Pegasus::getInstance over each
> individual Pegasus::CIMObjectPath returned from enumerateInstanceNames.
>
> Array<CIMObjectPath> enumerateInstances()  == {
>                                       Array<CIMObjectPath> instaNames =
> enumerateInstanceNames();
>                                       Array<CIMObjectPath>
> compInstanace[i];
>                                       for(i=0; i<instaNames.size(), i++)
>                                           compInstanace[i] =
> getInstance(instanceNames[i]));
>                                       }
> Let me know if I am still wrong here..
>
> On 17 April 2012 22:23, Kirk Augustin <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>>
> wrote:
> It is not clear to me what the concern is?
>
> GetInstance() and enumerateInstances() return complete instances of
> objects in the search criteria, unless filtered by a passed in property
> list.
> But enumerateInstanceNames() does not return complete instances.  It only
> returns namespace and key property values sufficient so that getInstance()
> could be used to get the rest.
>
> Pegasus::enumerateInstances should not be equal to
> Pegasus::enumerateInstanceNames.
> It should return the same number of instances, but not the same amount of
> information about each instance.
>
> While Pegasus::getInstance and Pegasus::enumerateInstances could return
> different number of instances, but should have the same amount of
> information about each instance.
>
>
> Kirk Augustin
> 11821 NW McNamee Rd
> Portland, OR 97231
>
> HM: 503-289-4356
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Pranav S <*[email protected]* <[email protected]>>*
> To:* Venkateswara R Puvvada <*[email protected]* <[email protected]>>
> *
> Cc:* *[email protected]* <[email protected]> *
> Sent:* Tuesday, April 17, 2012 9:10 AM*
> Subject:* Re: Getting incomplete object path
>
> Hey Venkat,
>
> I did not get what is wrong here, even DMTF says the same and Pegasus is
> one of the implementation. Pegasus::enumerateInstances should be equal to
> Pegasus::enumerateInstanceNames, running Pegasus::getInstance over each
> individual Pegasus::CIMObjectPath retyrned from enumerateInstanceNames. I
> am not getInstance will return an array.
>
>
> On 17 April 2012 19:50, Pranav S <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>>
> wrote:
> That's cool Venkat, Thank You for pointing me to the cause for this
> behaviour.
>
>
>
> On 17 April 2012 17:29, Venkateswara R Puvvada <*[email protected]*<[email protected]>>
> wrote:
> Per the DMTF specification, the GetInstance operation returns an <instance>
> whereas EnumerateInstances returns <namedInstance>*.  So, the return value
> from GetInstance is not expected to include the instance name. Please refer
> to the Specification for CIM Operations over HTTP:
> *
> **http://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP200.html*<http://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP200.html>
>
>
> Regards,
> Venkat
>
>
>
>
> From:   Pranav S <*[email protected]* <[email protected]>>
> To:     *[email protected]* <[email protected]>,
> Date:   04/14/2012 11:34 AM
> Subject:        Getting incomplete object path
>
>
>
> Hello,
>
> I am enumerating a class instance names(Pegasus::CIMObjectPaths') using
> Pegasus::enumerateInstanceNames and after that doing Pegasus::getInstance
> on the obtained object paths. I get entire instance details, but the object
> path inside the obtained Pegasus::CIMInstance, is incomplete, it shows only
> the creation class name, rest of the details are not embedded in the
> Pegasus::CIMObjectPath. I see the instance properties but only object path
> is incomplete.
> Can some one spread some light on the issue?
>
> I am using OpenPegasus 2.11.1 for client and my Cim server and provider is
> from EMC.
>
> Is this EMC cim server/provider issue?
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Pranav
>
>
>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Pranav