RE: DataFusion Re: Questions about the DataFusion General Session
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Steve Culver
Aug 12, 2008, 9:03:32 AM8/12/08
to dataf...@googlegroups.com
Gentlemen,
I'm sorry to say that we on the DataFusion Protocols team have not done
a very good job of explaining how things work. The fact that we each
have used a different technologies to implement our WebServices is a
good
thing, and not a barrier in any way.
Just as you have suggested, the response from any vendor should be the
same if the same WebService is accessed, regardless of the underlying
technology used to process the request. A GET request to
laundryIntranet\chicago\dataFusion\DFfinishingLineProduction
or
laundryIntranet\gaBraun\webServices\response\DFfinishingLineProduction
should return messages that are identically formatted. The fact that
one
of us creates our XML string using Linux and another Windows is
completely
invisible to the party that issues the request.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: LinenMaster [mailto:scot...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 20:05
To: DataFusion
Subject: DataFusion Re: Questions about the DataFusion General Session
To a degree you are correct, I would have the expectation that in a
plant with "mixed" equipment a service name be called and expect to
receive the same XML data.
However the problem is that unless the webservice is developed on same
platform the webservice calls cannot be the same.
I believe that Etech is using Linux, while Chicago is using MS. The
Linux webservice may be developed using PHP vs .NET. - hence one of
the ideas behind "REST" - REST being nothing more than a generic
protocol stating that a web service must exist, and the methods and
platforms are not tied to any one flavor.
I think this where a WSDL for each vendor comes into play. A WSDL can
contain the whole library of services offered (by vendor) and the
prototype on how to call them. Further WSDLs are platform independent.
What this does for a developer is allow them to use the WSDL from any
vendor as reference in the code. Therefore only needing 1 reference
for each vendor. Instead of having to update code for each service
and code in the parameter string.
In effect it would be like loading a library / class of functions.
(In developer terms).
I think that would satisfy all parties - being able to develop
services as you see fit; but standardize how a developer calls
methods.
But at the end of the day what is key to is make sure the XML Tags are
uniform between like equipment (not between all equipment). So all
CBWs would transmit the same tags, then all ironers, folders, etc would
have their own set of tags - which some may the be same used by other
equipment types.
Scott
Computer Software Architects
On Aug 11, 2:32 pm, David GABraun <dproud...@gabraun.com> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Just wanted to respond to the "DataFusion Protocol Compatible". If the
> idea is to create a web service over an intranet for responding to
> http get and put commands then we are all currently "DataFusion
> Compatible". Several years ago there was an expression used in the
> industry of ISLANDS OF AUTOMATION defining the use of different
> hardware and communication protocols used within the industry. Based
> on what I have read recently we are creating ISLANDS OF WEBSERVICES. I
> think we need to step back and define what are the standards of
> compliance that we as vendors need to comply to. The one page I
> thought was on the right track was the
> DFfinishingLineProductionWebService.doc. From a software development
> standpoint having a common GET protocol such as(http://vendorX/
> dataFusion/DFfinishingLineProduction/default.aspx?
> startDateTime=2008-02-26T08:00:00&endDateTime=2008-02-26T08:59:59) to
> develop with makes more sense than having to create a unique one for
> each vendor. We just replace VendorX in a setup file with the name of
> the company I want to Get data from. Some of the current web services
> use dates on Get commands and some don't. Some of the XML files define
> data types while others do not. If a customer has a Chicago finishing
> line and a Braun finishing line they should be able to retrieve the
> same DataFusion XML file from both lines by changing the VendorX
> parameter of the Get command.
>
> If we are all truly going to be "DataFusion Protocol Compatible" then
> we need the standards that this will be defined by. If you need
> someone to lead this initiative then I would be glad to offer my
> services. I know the idea of DataFusion is a good one and something
> the industry needs. I applaud Milnor, ETech and Chicago for taking the
> initiative to start the process but I'd hate to see it suffer the same
> fate as other efforts in the past. We need to work in one common
> direction and not a free for all in many.
>
> David Proudman
>
> Controls Application Engineer
> G.A. Braun, Inc.
> 461 East Brighton Ave.
> Syracuse, NY 13205
> Ph: (315) 299-3273
> Fax: (315) 475-4130
> E-mail: dproud...@gabraun.com
>
> On Aug 8, 12:26 pm, "Steve Tinker" <sjtin...@gurtler.com> wrote:
>
> > To all:
>
> > TCATA owns the DataFusion Protocol trademark. The DataFusion
committee
> > will have the authority to grant usage of the DataFusion trademark
and
> > logo to any company that meets appropriate standards of compliance,
> > performance, etc. For example if a company incorporates DataFusion
> > Protocol into their data communications software, etc. they may wish
to
> > advertise that their equipment or software is "DataFusion Protocol
> > Compatible" by using the logo and trademark. This would be similar
to
> > the makers of PCs that use the "Intel Inside" logo and trademark to
> > indicate their microprocessor capabilities.
>
> > This licensing of the trademark is an area that the Committee has
not
> > yet defined. However, it is envisioned that there will be some sort
of
> > licensing fee that may be limited to a specific term of time.
Licensing
> > companies would have to demonstrate that they meet the standards of
use
> > that the committee develops, etc.
>
> > For your consideration.
>
> > Steven J. Tinker
> > Director, Research & Development
> > Gurtler Industries, Inc.
> > Phone: 708-331-2550
> > Fax: 708-331-1210
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dataf...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:dataf...@googlegroups.com]
>
> > On Behalf Of LinenMaster
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:50 PM
> > To: DataFusion
> > Subject: DataFusion Questions about the DataFusion General Session
>
> > In the presentation it was mentioned about licensing DataFusion.
>
> > Please provide more information about what is meant by licensing
> > DataFusion.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I'm sorry to say that we on the DataFusion Protocols team have not done
a very good job of explaining how things work. The fact that we each
have used a different technologies to implement our WebServices is a
good
thing, and not a barrier in any way.
Just as you have suggested, the response from any vendor should be the
same if the same WebService is accessed, regardless of the underlying
technology used to process the request. A GET request to
laundryIntranet\chicago\dataFusion\DFfinishingLineProduction
or
laundryIntranet\gaBraun\webServices\response\DFfinishingLineProduction
should return messages that are identically formatted. The fact that
one
of us creates our XML string using Linux and another Windows is
completely
invisible to the party that issues the request.
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: LinenMaster [mailto:scot...@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, August 11, 2008 20:05
To: DataFusion
Subject: DataFusion Re: Questions about the DataFusion General Session
To a degree you are correct, I would have the expectation that in a
plant with "mixed" equipment a service name be called and expect to
receive the same XML data.
However the problem is that unless the webservice is developed on same
platform the webservice calls cannot be the same.
I believe that Etech is using Linux, while Chicago is using MS. The
Linux webservice may be developed using PHP vs .NET. - hence one of
the ideas behind "REST" - REST being nothing more than a generic
protocol stating that a web service must exist, and the methods and
platforms are not tied to any one flavor.
I think this where a WSDL for each vendor comes into play. A WSDL can
contain the whole library of services offered (by vendor) and the
prototype on how to call them. Further WSDLs are platform independent.
What this does for a developer is allow them to use the WSDL from any
vendor as reference in the code. Therefore only needing 1 reference
for each vendor. Instead of having to update code for each service
and code in the parameter string.
In effect it would be like loading a library / class of functions.
(In developer terms).
I think that would satisfy all parties - being able to develop
services as you see fit; but standardize how a developer calls
methods.
But at the end of the day what is key to is make sure the XML Tags are
uniform between like equipment (not between all equipment). So all
CBWs would transmit the same tags, then all ironers, folders, etc would
have their own set of tags - which some may the be same used by other
equipment types.
Scott
Computer Software Architects
On Aug 11, 2:32 pm, David GABraun <dproud...@gabraun.com> wrote:
> Steve,
>
> Just wanted to respond to the "DataFusion Protocol Compatible". If the
> idea is to create a web service over an intranet for responding to
> http get and put commands then we are all currently "DataFusion
> Compatible". Several years ago there was an expression used in the
> industry of ISLANDS OF AUTOMATION defining the use of different
> hardware and communication protocols used within the industry. Based
> on what I have read recently we are creating ISLANDS OF WEBSERVICES. I
> think we need to step back and define what are the standards of
> compliance that we as vendors need to comply to. The one page I
> thought was on the right track was the
> DFfinishingLineProductionWebService.doc. From a software development
> standpoint having a common GET protocol such as(http://vendorX/
> dataFusion/DFfinishingLineProduction/default.aspx?
> startDateTime=2008-02-26T08:00:00&endDateTime=2008-02-26T08:59:59) to
> develop with makes more sense than having to create a unique one for
> each vendor. We just replace VendorX in a setup file with the name of
> the company I want to Get data from. Some of the current web services
> use dates on Get commands and some don't. Some of the XML files define
> data types while others do not. If a customer has a Chicago finishing
> line and a Braun finishing line they should be able to retrieve the
> same DataFusion XML file from both lines by changing the VendorX
> parameter of the Get command.
>
> If we are all truly going to be "DataFusion Protocol Compatible" then
> we need the standards that this will be defined by. If you need
> someone to lead this initiative then I would be glad to offer my
> services. I know the idea of DataFusion is a good one and something
> the industry needs. I applaud Milnor, ETech and Chicago for taking the
> initiative to start the process but I'd hate to see it suffer the same
> fate as other efforts in the past. We need to work in one common
> direction and not a free for all in many.
>
> David Proudman
>
> Controls Application Engineer
> G.A. Braun, Inc.
> 461 East Brighton Ave.
> Syracuse, NY 13205
> Ph: (315) 299-3273
> Fax: (315) 475-4130
> E-mail: dproud...@gabraun.com
>
> On Aug 8, 12:26 pm, "Steve Tinker" <sjtin...@gurtler.com> wrote:
>
> > To all:
>
> > TCATA owns the DataFusion Protocol trademark. The DataFusion
committee
> > will have the authority to grant usage of the DataFusion trademark
and
> > logo to any company that meets appropriate standards of compliance,
> > performance, etc. For example if a company incorporates DataFusion
> > Protocol into their data communications software, etc. they may wish
to
> > advertise that their equipment or software is "DataFusion Protocol
> > Compatible" by using the logo and trademark. This would be similar
to
> > the makers of PCs that use the "Intel Inside" logo and trademark to
> > indicate their microprocessor capabilities.
>
> > This licensing of the trademark is an area that the Committee has
not
> > yet defined. However, it is envisioned that there will be some sort
of
> > licensing fee that may be limited to a specific term of time.
Licensing
> > companies would have to demonstrate that they meet the standards of
use
> > that the committee develops, etc.
>
> > For your consideration.
>
> > Steven J. Tinker
> > Director, Research & Development
> > Gurtler Industries, Inc.
> > Phone: 708-331-2550
> > Fax: 708-331-1210
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dataf...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:dataf...@googlegroups.com]
>
> > On Behalf Of LinenMaster
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 8:50 PM
> > To: DataFusion
> > Subject: DataFusion Questions about the DataFusion General Session
>
> > In the presentation it was mentioned about licensing DataFusion.
>
> > Please provide more information about what is meant by licensing
> > DataFusion.
>
> > Thanks,
>
> > Scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages