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

Mohammad Shahbaz Memon m.memon at fz-juelich.de
Thu May 8 02:17:34 CDT 2008


Hi All,

The document is attached with my changes.

Cheers

Shahbaz

On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 10:58 PM, Mohammad Shahbaz Memon
<m.memon at fz-juelich.de> wrote:
> 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)
>



-- 
------------------
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)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: ByteIO_Experiences_Common_0_6.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 178176 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/byteio-wg/attachments/20080508/355e54ab/attachment-0001.doc 


More information about the byteio-wg mailing list