Previous section.
Inter-domain Management: Specification Translation
Inter-domain Management: Specification Translation
Copyright © 1997 The Open Group
Comparison of Object Models
This chapter gives a detailed comparison of the
various aspects of the OSI (SMI, CMIP), OMG (CORBA) and Internet
(SNMP) management models, under the following headings:
-
goals
-
interfaces
-
elements of objects
-
object specification
-
object taxonomy
-
object reference
-
object selection.
Each section begins with a
glossary of basic concepts (incorporating relevant ODP terms). This is
followed by a matrix comparison of the way the basic concepts are
interpreted in the two models, and the section is then concluded with
comparative analysis.
Trying to provide a glossary of generally-agreed concepts in
object-oriented
modeling is a difficult task, and the outcome is inevitably contentious.
However, the works of many authorities on the subject have been consulted
including Wegner (see reference
Weg90),
Meyer (see reference
Mey88),
Goldberg (see reference
Gold89),
Rumbaugh et al
(see reference
rumb91),
Booch (see reference
Boo91)
and Kent (see reference
Kent91).
It is believed that the concepts
defined here provide a reasonable basis on which to conduct the comparison.
Goals of the Models
Each model has been developed to meet specific
business needs. These are summarized in the following sub-section.
Comparison
Intended Use
- OSI Mgmt
- Network Management.
- OMG
- Object-oriented distributed systems development.
- Internet Mgmt
- Management of the Internet and TCP/IP-based networked devices.
Interoperability/Portability
- OSI Mgmt
- At the syntactic and semantic level. No code portability, communications
interoperability.
- OMG
- At the syntactic and semantic level. Code portability. CORBA 2.0
provides interoperability.
- Internet Mgmt
- At the syntactic and semantic level. No code portability. Communications
interoperability.
User Advantage
- OSI Mgmt
- Management of heterogeneous network components.
- OMG
- Transparency to applications of underlying heterogeneous platforms.
- Internet Mgmt
- Management of heterogeneous inter-networked devices.
Re-usable Components
- OSI Mgmt
- Library/catalogue of management information.
- OMG
- Interface Type library.
- Internet Mgmt
- Management Information Base (MIB) specifications.
Analysis
- Portability
- Portability for OSI and Internet management is provided by the the
XMP (see reference
XMP)
and XOM (see reference
XOM)
interfaces.
- Interoperability
- There are two aspects to component interoperability:
agreement on the syntax and
agreement on the semantics of information interchange. Achieving
interoperability requires conformance to both.
The strategic objective of each group is identical -
to promote syntactic and
semantic interoperability between heterogeneous computing components.
The models differ only in their approaches to specifying such interoperability
and their choices of the interface points at which the interoperability is
to exist. For OSI Management and OMG, as can be seen in
Interfaces
,
far from
conflicting, these choices are complementary.
- Re-usability
- A common theme running through the statement of objectives of
the OSI management and OMG models is that of component re-usability with
emphasis on type/object libraries, portability of applications, and
heterogeneous management components. Ever since the identification of the
software crisis (see reference
Naur68)
some quarter of a century ago, the re-use of
software components has been promoted as a solution (see reference
Krug92).
Interfaces
As was pointed out in the previous section, the groups have chosen
different positions for their interfaces - OSI Management has chosen a
communications interface between computer systems, whereas OMG has chosen a
programmatic interface between components within a computer system. These
choices have dictated a different style of interface but, nonetheless, a
number of important concepts apply to all three.
Concepts
- Interface
- The boundary at which a prescribed specification is supported. The
reference model for ODP supports multiple object interfaces and viewpoints.
An ODP Interface type is a predicate that characterises an interface. An
interface signature can be described using an interface definition language.
Interfaces can have behaviour specifications described using formal
description techniques.
The three models compared in this document describe the following interface
types:
- OSI
- managed object communication interface, operations and notifications
- OMG
- programmatic interface between invoker and object
- SNMP
- get
and
set
operations upon instrumentation variables.
- Open Interface
- An interface that supports a published protocol and at which conformance may
be tested.
- Protocol
- A set of syntactic and semantic rules for exchanging information.
- Carriage Protocol
- A protocol to which invocations, notifications, and replies are
added to form a complete protocol.
- Interface Concurrency
The property of an interface such that it will accept protocol elements at
any time.
- Exception
- A condition that precludes normal execution.
Comparison
Interface Type
- OSI Mgmt
- Communications interface between a managing-system
and a managed-system; an
agent, resident in the managed system, mediates between the managing system
and a managed object.
- OMG
- Programmatic interface between an invoker and object. The interface includes
signature only.
- Internet Mgmt
- Communications interface between a Network Management Station (manager)
and Device (agent). The agent supports one or more MIBs.
Carriage Protocol
- OSI Mgmt
- The syntax and semantics of the carriage protocol are defined in ISO/IEC
9596-1 (see reference
CMIP).
- OMG
- Independent of carriage protocol. Interoperability dictates one or more
protocols.
- Internet Mgmt
- The syntax and semantics of the carriage protocol are defined in RFC 1157
(see reference
SNMP)andRFC1448(seereference
SNMPv2).
Open Interface
- OSI Mgmt
- ISO/IEC 9596-1 is an international standard and many managed-object
specifications are publicly available, for example, OMNIPoint
(see reference
(OMNI).
- OMG
- IDL is specified in referenced document
CORBA.
Standard interfaces have been defined using
IDL by object service specifications (see reference
COS).
- Internet Mgmt
- RFC 1157 (SNMPv1) is an Internet standard; RFC 1448 (SNMPv2) is a proposed
draft Internet standard. Many MIB specifications are publicly available for
SNMPv1, with on-line access provided via the Internet.
Protocol Model
- OSI Mgmt
- The remote operations protocol model is one of non-blocking
message-passing
with normal and exception reply-types. A single initiating message may
result in multiple replies.
- OMG
- The protocol model has two execution semantic styles: at most once (blocking
with exceptions); best effort (non blocking, no guarantee of delivery).
Delivery of events is not guaranteed by COSS event services (see
reference
ESS).
- Internet Mgmt
- The protocol model is primarily manager-initiated message-passing,
without guaranteed delivery. A single initiating message results in (at
most) a single reply.
Interface Concurrency
- OSI Mgmt
- A management association which supports operations and transfer of event
reports requires interactions to be processed concurrently. Support for
confirmed event reports requires interface concurrency.
- OMG
- Not precluded by the object model.
- Internet Mgmt
- Polling driven, manager controls concurrency. Traps are not confirmed.
Analysis
- Interface Types
- The choices of interface made by the OSI management and OMG groups reflects
their different preoccupations: OSI chose network management communications,
while OMG chose software development. These choices are synergistic:
object-oriented network-management systems have to be implemented, and
implementors will require object-oriented software tools.
- Protocol Model
- The use of OMG client stubs implies a blocking procedure-call model.
However implementation support for a dynamic invocation interface is
defined, which allows deferred synchronous operation. OMG implementations
can be designed to employ callbacks to the original invoking client
application for return of operation results, thus permitting asynchronous
operations. However, some implementations of CORBA do not provide a
callback location as part of receiving an operation invocation. Thus to be
safe, a CORBA operation which is designed to be followed by callback
operations should provide an input parameter containing an
ObjectReference upon which to invoke the callback.
OSI Management has, through the use of ROSE (see reference
XAP-ROSE),
chosen a non-blocking
message-passing model. Exception handling mechanisms will have to be aligned.
- Protocol Specification
There are three aspects to the specification of a protocol: the rules for
exchanging information; the semantics of the information; and the syntax of
the information. OSI Management has chosen to specify all three aspects,
whilst OMG in CORBA 1 has chosen to specify no protocol for
interoperability. However CORBA 1 does specify a language mapping to C.
Other language mappings are defined by the OMG (including C++, SmallTalk).
CORBA 2.0 provides interoperability between different ORB implementations,
and protocols have been specified for use between ORBs.
Characteristics of Objects
This section deals with the most fundamental aspects of the object
models - the objects themselves, what they are, and what
they are about. To compare the
characteristics of objects, notwithstanding the notion of encapsulation,
it is necessary first to consider the abstractions underlying
the internal nature of objects
including their state, behaviour, and methods. From there, the attributes
appearing at the interface of objects and the signals crossing the
interface can be compared.
In ODP terms, all objects have a
type,
which is a predicate that determines
if an object is of that type. The extension of all the object instances of
a given type is called the
class
derived by that
type.
Instances of a class
are generated to adhere to the specifications of a
class template,
which specifies the
behaviour
of the object. Objects are characterised by the
interfaces they support. In ODP, an object can support multiple interfaces,
bound to a common state.
Concepts
- Object
- A collection of behaviours that share the same state.
- State
- A stable internal condition of an object.
- Behaviour
- A change in the state of an object.
- Attribute
- A set of data values (that is, a data-type) and qualifiers over those data
values; the data values are built from literals.
- Literal
- A set of data values (that is, a data-type) which, by convention, have fixed
semantics (for example, integer, boolean).
- Encapsulation
- A property of an object such that its state can only be accessed by means of
prescribed signals across the object boundary or by means of prescribed
relationships between objects.
- Operation
- A behaviour of an object. It is normally initiated by the reception of an
invocation.
- Event
- An autonomous behaviour of an object. It may be signalled by the emission of
a notification.
- Invocation
- A signal, possibly parameterised, requesting that an operation be performed
by an object.
- Notification
- A signal, possibly parameterised, indicating that an event has occurred.
- Reply
- A signal, possibly parameterised, indicating a response to an invocation or
notification; replies are often classified as normal or
exceptions.
- Parameter
- A data value whose syntax conforms to that of a prescribed protocol.
- Method
- The implementation of an operation.
- Qualifier
- An additional semantic applied to an attribute (for example, concerning
accessibility or default values).
Comparison
Description
- OSI Mgmt
- A
managed object
is described by the Management Framework (see reference
ISO/IEC498-4)
as "a view of a resource that may be managed through the
use of OSI Management protocols".
A managed object enforces encapsulation, and it is
characterised by the attributes it makes available, its behaviour, and the
invocations and notifications that cross its boundary. A managed object can
optionally present itself as if it were a
superclass (allomorphism) of that
of which it is instantiated.
- OMG
- An
object
is described as
"a package of data and code used to implement a
computational construct or to model an application entity"
(see reference
OOM).
An OMG
object enforces encapsulation and is characterised by the attributes it
makes available, its behaviour, and the signals that cross its boundary. An
object may have more than one interface, but only inheritance
is explicitly provided as a mechanism in IDL to specify multiple interfaces.
- Internet Mgmt
- As described by RFC1155 (see reference
ISMI),
"managed objects are accessed via a virtual information
store, termed MIB ... Each type of object has a name, a
syntax, and an encoding"
(see reference
ISMIV2).
Internet objects represent individual
variables which can be manipulated using SNMP protocol; the Internet SMI
provides no mechanism for collecting together all variables which together
might encapsulate a resource. Also, in Internet objects,
the notion of interface inheritance is not supported.
Object Operations
- OSI Mgmt
- An operation may be initiated by receiving an invocation. A
confirmed operation will generate one or more replies; a non-confirmed
operation will not. Exceptions are signalled by means of exception replies.
Invocations and replies may be parameterised.
- OMG
- An operation is initiated either by a generated stub or by the dynamic
invocation interface. The normal execution of an operation results in a
reply (and the return of control to the invoker). An exception is indicated
by means of an exception signal and the transfer of control to an exception
handler. Invocations, replies, and exception signals may be parameterised.
- Internet Mgmt
- An operation is initiated by the receiving of a request. Each request
generates a single response (although SNMPv2
Get-Bulk
provides a
self-repeating
operator for conceptual table traversal). Exceptions are
signalled as responses. Requests and responses may be parameterised.
Object Events
- OSI Mgmt
- Behaviour unconnected with operations may be signalled by means of a
notification. A confirmed notification requires a reply; a non-confirmed
notification does not. Notifications and replies may be parameterised
- OMG
- Objects which generate events invoke an operation on the event notification
service (see reference
ESS).
Event distribution is via push model
or pull model. Event notification service does not indicate
failure/success of delivery to
Invoker. No standard event filtering is yet defined (other than by grouping
originating objects into channels). The receiver of typed events indicates
support of each event.
- Internet Mgmt
- Significant events unconnected with operations may be signalled by means of a
non-confirmed
Trap
notification (intended for infrequent generation by
managed devices) or a confirmed
Inform-Request
(intended for use between
managers). Notifications are specified as part of the carriage protocol, and
are unrelated to object type definitions. Event philosophy has been
characterised as
trap-directed polling.
Behaviour
- OSI Mgmt
- Behaviour can be in any language (natural or formal), but is most
commonly written in English. This is normative information and can
be subjected to conformance testing. This would normally require an
intermediate step to represent the behaviour in a testable form.
- OMG
- Side effects are permitted but are not specified in IDL. Basic OMG IDL has
no formal way to specify what event types may be generated (event generation
is independent of interfaces an object supports). A Receiver only knows
which channel an event came from (channels can have
multiple object sources) but
event data could be defined to include originating
objectReference.
- Internet Mgmt
- Textual specification may be included in the description clause of an object
type definition, describing the behaviour of an individual variable. This
may include description of an entire conceptual table or table row, but
otherwise does not specify the behaviour of encapsulated resources.
Notification behaviour specifications are unrelated to object type behaviour
specifications.
Attributes
- OSI Mgmt
- An attribute is characterised by a set of data values and qualifiers which
specify matching rules, range restrictions, initial and default values, and
access restrictions. Attributes can also be manipulated by specifying an
attribute group name that identifies one or more attributes.
- OMG
- An attribute is characterised by an
identifier, a type, and an optional
read-only
qualifier.
There is no mechanism for grouping attributes.
- Internet Mgmt
- An attribute is embodied by an object type specification, which identifies
the object name, syntax, description, access, status, and default value (if
any). Syntax may include range and/or value restrictions.
There is no mechanism for grouping attributes.
Attribute Operations
- OSI Mgmt
- Built-in operations on attributes are
get attribute,
replace attribute
and
replace attribute with default.
Set-valued attributes have
add-member
and
remove-member.
Built-in operations support manipulation of multiple
attributes or attribute groups within a single
operation. A built-in operation supports the
cancellation of the
get
built-in operation. Arbitrary
exceptions (specific errors) may be specified on attribute operations.
- OMG
- Built-in operations on attributes are
set attribute
and
get attribute.
Built-in operations can only get/set the value of a
single attribute within one invocation. Only standard exceptions
are supported on attribute operations.
- Internet Mgmt
- Built-in operations on attributes (object types) are
get attribute
and
set attribute.
Aggregate conceptual tables and table rows are supported by the
ASN.1 construct SEQUENCE [OF].
Built-in operations are
get-next
(SNMPv1) and
get-bulk
(SNMPv2). However, these operations serve only to navigate through
conceptual tables; individual object types are the only accessible elements.
Built-in operations support manipulation of multiple
attributes within a single operation. Some standard exceptions are supported on
attribute operations.
Object Life-cycle Operations
- OSI Mgmt
- Built-in operations to agent for create and delete of object instances.
Creator may specify name or may rely on agent to supply name. It
has no standard protocol to move object instances between systems.
- OMG
- No built-in operation for
instantiation of object interfaces by client demand.
However, factory objects may be defined which allow
clients to create application specific object interfaces.
COSS (see reference
ESS)
life-cycle services specify deletion of objects, as well as copy/move of object
implementations.
- Internet Mgmt
- No direct support for life cycle operations. SNMP v2 has notion of special
variable in table rows which allows for a
set
operation to make a new table row available.
Attribute Behaviour
- OSI Mgmt
- The behaviour of attribute-oriented operations is defined. The interaction
between attribute operations is left to the package definition.
- OMG
- get
and
set
operations are defined for attributes. Behaviour
specification is only available through textual comments.
- Internet Mgmt
- The behaviour of attribute-oriented operations is defined; interaction
between operations is not.
Data Types
- OSI Mgmt
- All primitive ASN.1 built-in types are supported, including
BOOLEAN; INTEGER; BIT STRING; OCTET STRING; NULL;
ANY DEFINED BY, CharacterString;
OBJECT IDENTIFIER; REAL; ENUMERATED; and Generalized Time.
The following constructed types are supported:
SET, SET OF, SEQUENCE, SEQUENCE OF, CHOICE.
- OMG
- Primitive types are integer, floating point, character,
octet, boolean, and ANY (type descriptor, data fields).
Built in access methods exist for ANY type.
Aggregate attribute values and operation parameters are supported by the
collection types, which are Sequences (variable length ordered list);
struct, Union, Enum, Array (fixed size).
In IDL, recursion within constructed Type
declarations is only allowed if there is an intervening Sequence.
- Internet Mgmt
- The following primitive ASN.1 built-in types are supported by SNMPv1:
INTEGER, OCTET STRING, NULL, OBJECT IDENTIFIER.
The only ASN.1 constructed
type permitted is SEQUENCE [OF], used to generate either lists or tables.
New application-wide types may be defined, but only if they resolve into one
of the above implicitly defined ASN.1 types. RFC1155 (see reference
ISMI)
defines the
following application-wide types: NetworkAddress, IpAddress, Counter,
Gauge, TimeTicks, Opaque. RFC1442 (see reference
ISMIV2)
specifies revisions for SNMPv2,
including addition of BIT STRING, unsigned INTEGER, and 64-bit Counters.
Encapsulation
- OSI Mgmt
- Supported.
- OMG
- Supported.
- Internet Mgmt
- Not supported (except where encapsulating any individual variable).
Object Reference Data Type
- OSI Mgmt
- ObjectInstance (Distinguished Name), used extensively as communication
interface parameter. X.500 syntax used.
- OMG
- Object reference (type name Object). Interface operations may employ the
object reference type for their parameters. Its syntax is opaque to the
application using it.
- Internet Mgmt
- Object type identifier, appended to an object instance identifier (row
index) for objects contained within a conceptual table.
Interface Type References
- OSI Mgmt
- Managed object class, attribute id, notification id and action id are all
specified with a globally unique OBJECT IDENTIFIER value, as well as a
document specific textual ASN.1 reference label. Textual reference labels
are case sensitive.
- OMG
- Interface type has global reference id through Module Names. Attributes,
types and operations are referred to using scoped names defined within the
interface specification. IDL identifiers are case insensitive.
- Internet Model
- Object type is specified with globally unique OBJECT IDENTIFIER value, as
well as document-specific textual ASN.1 reference label. SNMPv2 also
specifies globally unique OBJECT IDENTIFIER values for Notifications, Module
Identities, Groups, and Compliance Modules.
Analysis
- Description
- At first sight, the descriptions of objects in the OSI management and OMG
models appear different, the OSI Managed object being a ... view of a
resource ... and the OMG object being ... a package of
code and data .... In
fact, both object models enforce strict encapsulation: objects are
characterised by how they appear to the outside world, not how they are
constructed internally. With the exception of notifications
and the support of built-in operations to support
manipulating multiple attributes with a single
invocation, differences between the models are surprisingly few. In
practice, objects from both models will be constructed of code and data and
be run on computer processors.
From the ODP perspective managers and agents can be modelled as ODP objects.
However, OSI management, OMG and Internet management each limit
specification of an object to that of a performer of operations. Invoker
behaviour is not specified in OSI management, OMG, or Internet management.
- Operations
- Both the OSI and OMG models support the notion
of an extensible set of operation types,
although particular objects are only required to support a fixed set of
operation types. The mechanism for invoking such operations is defined by
the underlying protocol.
There is a need to define a generic OMG factory object interface to support
the OSI managed object
M-CREATE
operation for managed objects mapped to CORBA interfaces.
- Events
- The major difference between the OMG and OSI management models is the way of
specifying autonomous events.
In OSI, management events are behaviour unconnected with operations; they
reflect the active, autonomous nature of managed objects.
Typically, event notifications are caused by alarm
conditions (for example, loss of signal) in the resource
represented by a managed object.
The event notifications which an object may emit
are specified as part of the Managed Object definition.
An event report management function
determines which event notifications are forwarded as event
reports to designated destinations.
The notion of events has been accommodated in the OMG object services. The
main difference between OMG events is that they are specified as being
supported by the receiver of the events. In effect, OMG event services
models events as operations in the other direction.
- Attributes
- In OSI management and OMG (unlike Internet management), the models
differentiate between attributes and objects:
-
there are distinct type systems for objects and attributes
-
objects ontologically precede attributes (that is, attributes can only be
accessed within the context of an objects)
-
there are built-in operations to manipulate attributes.
This is in-line with popular programming models such as Eiffel
(see reference
Mey88)
and C++ (see reference
Strou87),
but is at variance with models such as Smalltalk (see reference
Gol89),
where everything is an object.
Both the OMG and OSI Models support aggregate attribute types.
OSI Management allows specification of specific user-defined errors on
attribute operations, and defines operations to manipulate members of
set-valued attributes (add, remove).
If OSI management attributes are
mapped to OMG attributes, then only CORBA standard errors can be used,
resulting in a loss of information. In addition, there would be no way of
using CORBA operations to add or remove members of set-valued attributes.
An alternative would be to map some OSI managed object attributes to custom
CORBA IDL operations, in cases where user defined exceptions or set member
operations are required.
- Encapsulation
- Both the OSI and OMG models have similar notions of
encapsulations: the state of an object can only be accessed by means of
signals across the object boundary or by means of relationships between
objects. However, the OSI management interface definition includes, in
addition to operations the object can perform, the notifications that
an object may emit.
Object Specification and Instantiation
Concepts
- Specification Binding
- The irrevocable merging of specifications.
- Object Instantiation
- The process by which instances of objects are created.
Comparison
Attribute Specification
- OSI Mgmt
- Attributes and qualifiers are specified independently of managed-object
classes.
- OMG
- Attributes and qualifiers are defined only within scope of Object interface
types.
- Internet Mgmt
- Attributes (object types) are specified individually, not within any
object class
context. Object types may be aggregated into conceptual tables, but
the same object type may not appear in multiple tables. SNMPv2 Textual
Conventions may be used to specify behaviour and syntax to be reused by
multiple object types.
Binding
- OSI Mgmt
- Specifications of attributes, operations, and events may be bound into
packages by means of a package specification. The package specification may
specify additional constraints over the attributes (for example,
for example,
range restrictions)
and over operations and events (for example,
for example,
constraining variable-type parameters);
it also specifies the semantics of the package as a whole (for
example, the meaning of a statistics package).
IDD
Package specifications themselves may be bound into a managed-object class
by means of a managed-object-class specification. These bindings are
qualified as either mandatory (a managed-object instance must reflect the
specifications contained in the package) or conditional (a managed-object
instance may reflect the specifications contained in the package).
- OMG
- Specifications of attributes and operations are combined into interfaces.
Interfaces may be further combined into modules. Optionality is not
supported for interface specifications. However, attribute and parameter
values can include
null
choices, and there is a standard NOT_IMPLEMENTED
exception type defined for CORBA.
The OMG Event Service has events defined as operations of an interface which
operates in the reverse direction (that is, events are raised by the Object
invoking an operation). Thus, a managed object can define one or more
interface containing all the events which it can generate. The manager needs
to support that interface.
- Internet Mgmt
- Individual object types may be combined into conceptual table rows, but no
additional constraints or semantics are imposed there. In SNMPv2, individual
object types may be combined into
Object Groups
which specify the semantics
of the group as a whole, but do not otherwise impose additional constraints.
Also in SNMPv2, individual object groups and types may be referenced by
Module Compliance macros which specify access and/or value constraints
permitted for conformance to a given MIB module. Object type status does not
indicate presence/absence, its values are
current
and
obsolete.
A
Module Compliance
macro specifies object groups as mandatory or otherwise for the
purpose of conformance.
Object Instantiation
- OSI Mgmt
- Instantiation may be from what alreadty exists,
by local means, or by means of a CMIP create operation.
- OMG
- Instantiation may be from what already exists,
or by means of an operation invocation on an
application specific
factory
interface. No standard factory interfaces are defined for CORBA.
- Internet Mgmt
- Instantiation may be from what already exists,
by local means, or by means of a set operation
involving a conceptual table row status variable.
Behaviour Specification
- OSI Mgmt
- Unstructured natural language behaviour clause, with a recommendation to
state pre-conditions, post-conditions, and invariants.
- OMG
- Unstructured natural language, using IDL comments.
- Internet Mgmt
- Unstructured natural language.
Specification Tools
- OSI Mgmt
- GDMO templates.
- OMG
- IDL.
- Internet Mgmt
- ASN.1 macros (OBJECT-TYPE, NOTIFICATION, MODULE-IDENTITY,
MODULE-COMPLIANCE, OBJECT-GROUP).
Analysis
- Specification techniques
The major difference in specification techniques is between the OSI
Management piecemeal approach and the more monolithic approach taken by
OMG. The OSI Management approach of separate specifications bound into
packages which are subsequently bound into object classes, is claimed to
improve the potential for re-use of specifications. Conditionally-bound
packages are a form of late binding. They meet OSI Management's need for
controlled variation in managed-object class specifications, but if used
liberally they can cause ambiguity for implementors (see reference
MPR).
In the OSI
Management model, the union of the object-class identification with
the identification of the packages present serves as the indicator of a
particular managed object's characteristics. For implementors, packages
complicate the type hierarchy.
The OMG specification technique is more monolithic over the type and does
not admit late binding (it specifies that "the object type
is an absolute indication of the
characteristics of a type instance"). Re-use is achieved
by inheritance
(possibly multiple) of interface definitions. However, there is a standard
exception (NOT IMPLEMENTED) which must be dealt with by invokers when an
object implementation does not support an operation defined in its
interface.
Conditional packages can lead to situations where all members of a class may
not be the same. Usage of null values for attributes/parameters to simulate
optionality does not change this.
- Behavioural Specification
The behavioural aspects of managed objects are specified using natural
language (see reference
SMI),
although it is recommended that such specifications should be
expressed in terms of pre-conditions, post-conditions, and invariants. There
have been attempts to use formal techniques for the specification of the
behaviour particular managed-object classes (see reference
SMI).
The OMG also proposes
the use of natural language to specify the behavioral aspects of objects.
ODP behaviour specifications will use Formal Description Techniques (FDTs).
Dynamic type checking may use assertions about behaviour.
- Specification Tools
- OSI Management provides two tools for formally specifying the syntax of
managed objects and the associated messages:
-
a template language (see reference
GDMO)
for defining the characteristics managed objects
-
a data-definition language (see reference
ASN.1)
for defining the data types associated with attributes and parameters.
The OMG CORBA 1.0 model does not prescribe a language for defining the
syntax of the associated messages. For IDL (see reference
CORBA),
a language similar to C++ is used
to define the programmatic interface signature.
The OMG model defines objects by defining interface operations using in
IDL. The word
object
in CORBA is equivalent to
object interface
in ODP.
Object Taxonomy
A taxonomy permits reasoning about real-world things by grouping
instances of those things into classes or types and by relating the
different classes or types. In day-to-day discourse,
the terms class and type
are used synonymously, but in the world of object-oriented systems, classes
and types are different. In ODP, a
class
is the extension of (that is, the set of instances which satisfy) a
type.
Concepts
- Object Type
- A predicate over the characteristics of an object. Objects are said to
conform to a type.
- Object Subtype
- An additional predicate over the characteristics of a supertype.
- Object Class
- The set of objects which are of the same type. Objects in a class can have
one or more compatible templates used for the generation and management of
objects. Every type defines a class; however,
the converse is not necessarily true.
In ODP, the term
class
is used to represent the set of instances that
satisfy a type, and a
template
represents the object specifications.
- Object Sub-class
- A modification to the template of a superclass.
- Inheritance
- A mechanism for deriving the specification of a descendant from the
specification of an ancestor, such that in addition to its own
characteristics, a descendant acquires all (strict inheritance), or part, of
the characteristics of its ancestor. A descendant may have a single
immediate ancestor (single inheritance) or multiple immediate ancestors
(multiple inheritance). The super/sub relationship resulting from single
inheritance may be represented by a tree; that resulting from multiple
inheritance may be represented by a directed, acyclic graph.
At first glance, the subtyping and subclassing relationships
in the OMG and OSI models appear similar.
They both involve the development of new types or classes by means of
inheritance and by the addition of new predicates or template
modifications. The difference is that the subtyping relationship is one of
substitutability, whereas the subclassing relationship is one of
implementation sharing (see reference
Lalon91).
Thus an instance of a subtype may be
substituted for an instance of a supertype without any change in behaviour
visible at the object interface. A subclass, by comparison, shares the
implementation of its superclass, and an instance of a subclass cannot always
be reliably substituted for an instance of a superclass.
Comparison
Object Class
- OSI Mgmt
- The Management Information Model (see reference
SMI)
classifies managed objects into
classes. Class specifications are documented by templates.
- OMG
- The OMG model specifies objects by their interface. There is no direct
concept of Object Class in OMG. However an object template can be derived
from the inheritance graph of interface definitions.
- Internet Mgmt
- The Internet SMI (see references
ISMI
and
ISMIV2)
defines object types which classify individual variables.
Taxonomy
- OSI Mgmt
- Managed-object classes are related in quasi type-hierarchy by means of
strict, multiple inheritance. The root of the hierarchy is the
managed-object class
TOP,
which specifies attributes for specifying static
properties common to all classes (for example,
the actual Managed object class,
which of the conditional packages are instantiated, and
which classes the instance may respond to requests as).
It is legal to inherit from two class definitions
which include the same action or attribute, since the properties of the
common named operations are merged (for example,
get
and
get-replace
become
get-replace
in the derived class).
- OMG
- Object types are related in a type hierarchy of supported interfaces by
means of multiple inheritance. The root of the hierarchy is the object type
object.
It is currently illegal to inherit from two interfaces with the
same operation or attribute name, or to redefine an operation or attribute
name in the derived interface.
- Internet Mgmt
- Object types are related in a naming hierarchy that reflects conceptual table
and object group organisation. The root of the naming hierarchy is the
OBJECT IDENTIFIER assigned to the entire MIB. There is no support for
inheritance of any type, although SNMPv2 conceptual tables may
augment existing conceptual tables specified elsewhere.
Type System
- OSI Mgmt
- The managed-object types are distinct from other types (for example,
attributes, actions, notifications) in the model.
- OMG
- Object interface types are integrated into a single type-hierarchy for all
the types in the model.
- Internet Mgmt
- Object types are distinct from each other, and from other types in the model.
Analysis
The taxonomies used in the OSI and OMG models are largely
similar. They are both specified in terms of object interfaces, and both use
a multiple-inheritance discipline. The OSI Management Model specifies a
number of attributes in TOP (objectClass and nameBinding).
Thus all managed objects contain instances of those attributes.
The OMG model support the notion of substitutability by means of subtyping
(that is, support for each inherited interface is required when supporting a
derived interface). The OSI Management Model supports a similar notion by
means of a limited subtyping capability termed compatibility (see
reference
SMI).
Representing GDMO managed object inheritance in the case of repeated
attributes or actions in the inherited packages will require special
treatment when translating to OMG CORBA IDL.
Object Reference
Understanding the term
object reference
requires special care. Confusion
and overlap exists between the identity of an object and its name.
Informally, the identity of an object is that which distinguishes it from all
others (see reference
Khosh86),
and a name is a mnemonic handle used to refer to an object
(see reference
Hauze86).
Thus, the identity of a person could be the molecules that make
up that person (although the molecules keep changing) and the name of a
person could be the symbols that appear on their birth certificate.
Identity (that is, object reference) is difficult to define in formal sense,
but intuitively it is
"something enduring about an object"
(see reference
Kent91).
A name on
the other hand is easier to define, being a token used to refer to an object.
However, names of objects can change with time, and the same name could apply
to many objects over time.
Both
object references
and
names
refer to objects, but generally
object references
have no structure and are implemented as long bit-strings to
facilitate effective machine processing. Their main use is to
"resolve predicates of sameness and equality"
(see reference
Kent91).
Names,
on the other hand, are
normally symbolic and mnemonic and oriented towards human consumption.
Concepts
It is important to have a formal framework for object reference and object
naming within a distributed system.
The following definitions are offered:
- Object Identity
- A unique property of an object that unambiguously distinguishes it from all
other objects in the universe of discourse for all time.
- Object Reference
- A unique token used to unambiguously refer to an object during its lifetime.
Object references are assigned at object creation time and are never
subsequently re-assigned.
Thus, the mapping function of object reference to
object, if it is valid, is both single-valued
and singular (1:1) during the
life-time of the object, and invalid afterwards.
- Name
- A token used to refer to an object. Different objects may be assigned the
same name and the object may be assigned different names. Names may be
re-assigned during the lifetime of the object.
Thus the mapping function of
name to object, if it is valid, may be both multi-valued and
non-singular, and may change with time.
- Access Transparency
- A reference to an object does not expose/define the carriage protocol to
that object.
- Location Transparency
A reference to an object does not expose its location.
- Location Independence
A reference to an object remains valid after the object changes location.
Comparison
Object Reference
- OSI Mgmt
- There is no specific concept of an object reference for a managed object
other than the object instance (distinguished name).
- OMG
- In CORBA, Object Reference is an opaque type (that is, it is not externally
defined and thus has no particular format). Objects may have more than one
reference. Objects are assigned object references at creation.
Object references are local entities and may not be globally unique.
- Internet Mgmt
- An object's reference is its name (that is, ASN.1 OBJECT IDENTIFIER). All
agents use identical names for objects of a given types. In SNMP V2, the
community field (or whatever it is now called) can be used to select the
particular Agent which will serve as the scope for the object references
passed in the protocol operations.
Name
- OSI Mgmt
- A managed object must have a single distinguished name, comprised of a
sequence of Relative Distinguished Names (RDNs), corresponding to a name
scope hierarchy of instance containment (not necessarily physical
containment). Each RDN is a single, mandatory attribute/value pair
associated with the managed object. The RDN attribute value is assigned at
object creation-time and may not be changed during the lifetime of the
object, although it may be reused afterwards.
- OMG
- Objects may have an arbitrary number of names. The scope is a name context.
Names are distinct from objects - objects need not have names. There is
mapping between name values and objects. The mapping may be changed at any
time.
- Internet Mgmt
- An object instance name is formed by concatenating the OBJECT IDENTIFIER
assigned to the object type, with either the value zero (for singular
objects), or one or more object values representing conceptual table row
indices. Index object types do not need to be part of the conceptual table
row. Any given conceptual row always has the same index value(s), although
that row may be conceptually created and deleted many times over.
Naming Model
- OSI Mgmt
- A hierarchically-qualified set of naming contexts, based on object
containment, is prescribed to ensure object names are unique and unambiguous
within an agent system's local context (local distinguished name), as well
as in a global context (distinguished name). Aliases are not permitted.
- OMG
- The Name Service provides a directed, potentially cyclic, graph of naming
contexts. This may have many roots. All names are mapped to an
ObjectRef
(possibly of another naming context). Thus an object may have many names and
a single point in the graph may be reached via many routes.
- Internet Mgmt
- A hierarchically-qualified set of naming contexts, based on the object type
registration tree, provides names that are locally unique and unambiguous
within a single agent. To provide global uniqueness,
object instance names must be used in conjunction
with the agent's network address.
Aliases are not permitted.
Access Transparency
- OSI Mgmt
- Unsupported. CMIP as defined in ISO/IEC 9596-2 (see reference
CMIP)
is required. CMIP
may run over Internet Protocol (IP), LLC I, or OSI lower layers.
- OMG
- Supported. ORBs may use whatever protocol is most appropriate. ORBs may
employ Internet Protocol (IP), or OSI lower layers. CORBA interoperability
requires support of a standard protocol.
- Internet Mgmt
- Unsupported. SNMPv1 or SNMPv2 as defined by referenced documents
SNMP
and
SNMP
is required.
SNMP may run over a wide variety of Internet and non-Internet
transports, as described by RFC1449.
Location Transparency
- OSI Mgmt
- Not supported when objects are named within the scope of the System object.
For OSI management, OSI protocol machines are naturally named within the
scope of the open system they are part of, and thus location transparency is
meaningless. However, not all managed objects have to be named within the
scope of the System managed object, so location transparency is not
precluded.
- OMG
- Supported in CORBA. Lifecycle services include
Move
operations.
- Internet Mgmt
- Not supported.
Location Independence
- OSI Mgmt
- Not supported for managed objects named within the scope of
System.
- OMG
- Supported in CORBA.
- Internet Mgmt
- Not supported.
Analysis
At first sight, the object reference schemes seem very different. In the OMG
model, identity is determined by an opaque object reference value, while in
the OSI Management model it is determined by name. However, if
the user were to
forbid the renaming or moving of managed objects (which will largely be the
case in practice) and were to carefully manage the re-use
of managed-object
names, the two mechanisms are broadly equivalent,
since managed-object names
are unique and unambiguous, and aliases are not permitted.
Object Selection and Address Resolution
Concepts
- Selection
- The mechanism by which object instances are selected to receive invocations.
- Associative Selection
A reference constructed from predicates over the characteristics of objects.
Such a reference can resolve to zero or more objects.
- Address Resolution
- The mechanism by which a name is mapped to an address (see reference
Jacqm90).
Comparison
Direct Selection
- OSI Mgmt
- By name.
- OMG
- In OMG, an Object Reference is an address,
that is, it is all that is necessary
to connect to that object, regardless of its current location.
ORB interoperability is provided in CORBA 2.0 (see reference
CORBA),
which includes resolving object references between
different ORB implementations.
- Internet Mgmt
- By name.
Associative Selection
- OSI Mgmt
- Support of associative references by means of filters is optionally
supported. The syntax and semantics of filters are defined. The scope is
the whole, or some sub-tree, of the tree of managed objects.
With CMIP, the
invocation is made directly on the scope and filter - the agent
implementation sorts out the targets.
- OMG
- Associative reference to a set of names could be done by traversal of the
naming graph, or by a Trader Service. A standard OMG mechanism is not yet
defined. Commands addressed to a set of objects via an associative
reference would require a two phase mechanism: one which resolves to a set
of objects via constraint matching on properties of the object's supported
services; and the other which iterates over the objects invoking the
operation on it. Clearly a scoping and filtering service could be written,
but none appears specifically in the current OMG Roadmap (at the time
of publication).
OMG has a Relationship Service, which may also provide a different
mechanism. The OMG Object Services activity might
fast-track
a Trader Service (such as ODP
trader) which provides associative references employing constraint matching
on properties of services supported by object instances. Support for such
associative references is permitted but not required. A standard OMG trader
has not yet been specified, and it is expected that the ODP trader can be
used.
- Internet Mgmt
- SNMP
get-next
and
get-bulk
operators allow reference to a conceptual table
entry which is lexicographically
after
a named entry. The scope is the
agent's network address, the entire registration tree, and lexicographic
ordering within that tree. However, the receiver of these operation
responses must do any necessary
filtering out
of unwanted variables.
RFC1445 (see reference
IADM)
defines
MIB Views
which are subsets of all instances of all object types.
Address Resolution
- OSI Mgmt
- The model does not prescribe a mechanism for address resolution, but it
could be provided by the Directory (see reference
DIR).
- OMG
- The ORB provides address resolution. Mapping from a name to an object
reference is done by the Name Service. An ORB resolves only a single target,
and it is an application concern to sort out the targets.
- Internet Mgmt
- The model does not prescribe a mechanism for address resolution, but it
could be provided by any directory service, including the Internet Domain
Name Server.
Analysis
Both OSI and OMG models permit similar features with respect to
object selection.
The OSI model permits a direct selection of a single object
by name, and the OMG model permits it by object identifier.
Both provide associative selection over some subset of objects that
may resolve to zero or more objects. In both cases, the responsibility for
address resolution is delegated.
The OSI Management model defines specific syntax and semantics of the
supporting mechanism. The OMG model does not.
ODP is specifying the syntax and semantics of a Trader service,
which is expected to be used for associated selection of OMG objects.
Why not acquire a nicely bound hard copy?
Click here to return to the publication details or order a copy
of this publication.