[cddlm] Notes from CDDLM sessions at GGF14

[Milojicic, Dejan S]

----------------------------------------------------------------
CDDLM #1 Reference implementations, note taker Stuart Schaefer

Reference Implementations - How do we go about it?
Presentations from HP Labs, NEC, HP-Brazil and Softricity
HP Labs - Steve Loughran
- Parser mostly complete - cdl:extends only one level deep
- Converts CDL to graph, then downconverts to SmartFrog
- WSRF/WSDM
  o Specifications in flux
  o Postponed touching until the end - hopefully things will stabilize
-  Created many test cases - these test cases need validation

NEC - Jun Tatemura
- Not finished with client
- Not finished with WSDM
- Need to implement Component Model
- Need to do conformance testing for CDL Parser
- Want to provide open source implementation plus front-end application
for Business Grid

HP-Brazil
- Building a full reference implementation
- A joint effort between HP, Intel, and University of Brazil

Softricity
- Will have complete implementation, non-conformant
- Complete by end of August
- Will work on interop after September

Schedule for reference implementations
- Jun will compile conformance test for CDL v0.1 for mid-August

ACS Integration / Compatibility not likely due to scheduling

----------------------------------------------
CDDLM #2, 6/29, 2-3:30pm, Windsor, Interop

interop demo: opinions?

what kind of applications should be demoed?
interop level of CDL? CDDLM framework?
interop of CDL parsers
- is that a part of conformance?
- if conformant, they should interoperate
- do we need to demonstrate as interop?
CDL is a unit test, deployment API is a system test
- component model is a functional test
  = walkthrough of component model functionalities only two touch points
we can verify
- client perspective
- component can be handled in different implementations invalid CDL case
can be also tested within Deployment API
  as fault in initialize()

support environment interoperability - fault if not deployable

test 1: one single component on one single machine a component has one
query-able property
- walk through lifecycle state transition + query properties

test 2: multiple component
- lazy reference resolution
- test semantics (e.g. ordering of deployed components)

test 3:
cascaded deployment? --> not included

what is not covered:
deployment of a system with multiple components across multiple
implementations (i.e., sharing one deployment graph on multiple
platforms)

what is cascaded deployment?
- a deployed component is also a client to another system
--> not be included

assumption: same client deploys to different CDDLM implementations
assumption: interop includes WSRF/WSDM interoperability
assumption: do a number of conformance test that
- succeed (with predictable outcome)
- fail

capture outcome in a log and compare logs for different reference
implementations?
--> no
--> deploy same executables witch are self-checking


NUnit/JUnit on sourceforge, aim is to automate interop testing

define test components

test case document
- three parts

individual test drafts by the mid-august
 
the test case document aims for GGF15

----------------------------------------

Notes from CDDLM #4 session, demos
Note taker Dejan Milojicic.

Jun presents the CDL demo, which also includes the component model
(initialization, starting, terminating, and destroying) the application
(JBOSS and MySQL).

At the moment, there is a separate component model, but the plan is to
eventually switch to Stuart's component model. However, Jun used pieces
of Steve's deployment APIs.

Tom asked to be walked though some of the CDLs. Dejan asked if Jun
believes that the version with component model would be easier to
develop. This is TBD.

Steve presented CDL parser with a number of Junit tests. He then did a
demo of starting a Web server. Steve has then gone over the code. He did
not implement either component model or deployment APIs, but rather did
a hack to interface to SmartFrog which deployed the Web server.

This was possible to do only because of the same semantics between CDL
and SmartFrog.

Conclusions about the conversions between the two languages: there is a
possibility to do a small amounts of compatibility

------------------------------------------

CDDLM Session with WSDM was walk over the deployment APIs and then
component model

------------------------------------------

CDDLM session with other WG has not happened in a coherent fashion since
a couple of chairs dropped by, we instead used that time to resync on
our commitments. We never held the last session on the specs because
there was no need for it.

Thanks,

Dejan.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CDDLM-WSDM.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 14336 bytes
Desc: CDDLM-WSDM.ppt
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/cddlm-wg/attachments/20050707/4b0dc435/attachment.ppt 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: GGF14_cddlm.ppt
Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint
Size: 73728 bytes
Desc: GGF14_cddlm.ppt
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/cddlm-wg/attachments/20050707/4b0dc435/attachment-0001.ppt