[BYTEIO-WG] URGENT: answers to comments needed - Draft 0.4ofByteIO Experiences document

[Mohammad Shahbaz Memon]

Hi Niel,

Thanks for reminding. I will try to send you the updated version by tomorrow.

Cheers,

Shahbaz







On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Michel Drescher
<Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Hi Mark, all,
>
>  brilliant - I'd vote for taking this into the experience document
>  unaltered.
>
>  Cheers,
>  Michel
>
>
> On 7 May 2008, at 17:31, Mark Morgan wrote:
>
>  >> Which versions of the of the WS-Addressing Spec did you use?
>  >
>  > http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing which corresponds to 1.0.
>  >
>  >> Could you check Section 4b and comment on whether this is an adequate
>  >> description of the process?
>  >
>  > Seems fine to me.
>  >
>  >> What is our agreed conclusion?
>  >
>  > Well, I would say something along the lines of this:
>  >
>  > The ByteIO interoperability fiesta success shows that the
>  > specification
>  > describes a pair of port types which, with minor fixes as indicated in
>  > this document, can be implemented by separate organizations in an
>  > unambigous (with respect to interface and port type) way.  These grids
>  > can, together with other specifications provided by the OGF (for
>  > example, the OGSA-WSRF-BP), can then be used interoperably by users.
>  > Further, the interop. fiest also shows that virtual interoperability
>  > festivals are feasable and under the right circumstances can be used
>  > effectively.
>  >
>  > Its worth noting that the task taken on by Michel Drescher to
>  > provide an
>  > interoperability test document which was then vetted by the standard
>  > OGF
>  > document process proved invaluable in making the ByteIO Interop
>  > Fiesta a
>  > success.  His careful attention to detail allowed for the fiesta
>  > participants to provide rigorous tests that could easily be validated
>  > and "graded" for success.
>  >
>  > If there was any negative aspects to the interop fiesta, they would be
>  > along the lines of the standards problems that seem inherent in OGF
>  > and
>  > web services interop festivals in general.  Namely, the specifications
>  > themselves rely on tooling, core specifications, and other 3rd party
>  > products that tend to hamper success.  WS-Addressing and WSDL are both
>  > complex specifications that have a tendency to promote only partially
>  > correct implementations.  Fiesta participants often rely on tooling to
>  > manipulate these specifications and end doing so can end up becoming
>  > tied to a fundamentally flawed tool or library.  It has been this
>  > writers experience that no grid implementation is free from this
>  > particular problem and the fact that the issues seem to continually
>  > raise their ugly heads indicates a fundamental flaw in either the
>  > process, or the foundations on which the grid services world has built
>  > it's specifications.
>  >
>  > In summary, this particular interop fiesta has shown that ByteIO is a
>  > reasonable and implementable specification that promised good
>  > interoperability.  Many of the projects included have shown that the
>  > specification itself is also useful to grid implementers and
>  > presumably
>  > to their target users.
>  >
>  > I believe we should cover:
>  > - how doing the interop virtually was a good idea
>  > - how having the interop doc from michel was a good idea, and how the
>  > process of interop helped to improve the doc
>  > - how tooling is a problem
>  > - how WS-Addressing may throw up issues
>  > - how we feel ByteIO will become useful in implementations
>  >
>  >> Mark:
>  >>
>  >> Could you contribute your part for Section 3c?
>  >
>  > Done, please see attached.
>  >
>  >> Could you elaborate on what aspects of WS-Addressing were a barrier
>  >> to
>  >> interoperation for Section 6d?
>  >
>  > Done, please see attached.
>  >
>  >> Can you check that the following: "The RandomByteIO interface has
>  >> proven
>  >> invaluable in the Genesis II system. Along with RNS, it is used
>  >> through the
>  >> system on every service implemented for management and user
>  >> interface", is
>  >> still true and accurate after my rewording.
>  >
>  > Yes, I would say that that is a fair re-wording.
>  > <ByteIO_Experiences_Common_0_5.doc>--
>  >  byteio-wg mailing list
>  >  byteio-wg at ogf.org
>  >  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/byteio-wg
>
>  --
>   byteio-wg mailing list
>   byteio-wg at ogf.org
>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/byteio-wg
>



-- 
------------------
Mohammad Shahbaz Memon
Distributed Systems and Grid Computing
Jülich Supercomputing Center
Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
Jülich Germany

Office: +49 (0)2461 61 6567
Fax: +49 (0)2461 61 6656
http://www.fz-juelich.de/jsc

Sitz der Gesellschaft: Jülich
Eingetragen im Handelsregister des Amtsgerichts Düren Nr. HR B 3498
Vorsitzende des Aufsichtsrats: MinDirig'in Bärbel Brumme-Bothe
Vorstand: Prof. Dr. Achim Bachem (Vorsitzender),
Dr. Ulrich Krafft (stellv. Vorsitzender)