[dmis-bof] Comments on the charter?

[Dave Berry]

Hi Peter,

There are implementations of WS-A by at least MS, IBM, BEA, Sun, JBOSS &
Apache.  

Dave.  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Kunszt [mailto:peter.kunszt at cern.ch] 
> Sent: 19 December 2005 08:38
> To: Dave Berry
> Cc: Michel Drescher; allcock at mcs.anl.gov; Hiro Kishimoto; 
> dmis-bof at ggf.org; Ian Foster
> Subject: RE: [dmis-bof] Comments on the charter?
> 
> hi dave
> 
> can you point me to the implementation of ws-addressing that you refer
> to as 'just about everybody'?
> 
> cheers
> peter
> 
> On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 16:23 +0000, Dave Berry wrote:
> > I'd push for WS-Addressing EPRs where possible.  The simplest EPR is
> > just a wrapped URI (actually an IRI, I believe), so it is a
> > straightforward extension of using URLs.  WS-Addressing is 
> implemented
> > by just about everybody, I believe.
> > 
> > If you use WS-A then it should be straightforward to generalise or
> > extend to include other specs based on WS-A.  These include WSRF and
> > WS-Naming, of course, but also other specs being developed 
> within the
> > industry.
> > 
> > Having said that, I would add the caveat that I'm not 
> expert on WS-A and
> > it would be good to get input from someone who really 
> understands this
> > stuff in detail.
> > 
> > Dave.
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org 
> [mailto:owner-dmis-bof at ggf.org] On Behalf
> > Of Michel Drescher
> > Sent: 16 December 2005 11:04
> > To: Peter Kunszt
> > Cc: allcock at mcs.anl.gov; Hiro Kishimoto; dmis-bof at ggf.org; 
> Ian Foster
> > Subject: Re: [dmis-bof] Comments on the charter?
> > 
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > On 14 Dec 2005, at 17:06, Peter Kunszt wrote:
> > 
> > >>>>  - we need to address naming.  What will we accept as 
> source and 
> > >>>> destination names? URLs? URIs? any string? EPRs?
> > >>>
> > >>> URL seems like a good choice, this would probably suit all
> > >> use cases.
> > >>> this is what we use in the GSM-WG. we have storage URLs.
> > >>> an EPR is nothing more than a decorated URL so a simple URL
> > >> would suit
> > >>> that too.
> > >>
> > >> URLs work fine for files, and I *suspect* it will be 
> what we use for 
> > >> V1.0, but if we take our file blinders off and try and 
> think about 
> > >> source other than files, i.e. a service that is 
> virtualizing some 
> > >> non-file data source, we might want EPRs.  This is 
> related to the 
> > >> next issue.
> > >
> > > well, if you take rich URLs, you can get away with anything. 
> > > ?query=...
> > 
> > I strongly support URLs. Note that, opposed to the very popular  
> > perception, URLs describe *resources*, not (only) files. 
> Apart from  
> > the scheme and authority parts of URLS (i.e. "http" and  
> > "forge.gridforum.org[:80]") URLs describe resources in a  
> > hierarchically ordered domain. THe query part is just a piece of  
> > information that further transports information specific to the  
> > addressed resource.
> > 
> > So if you want to publish for example the coffee 
> temperature in your  
> > mug using HTTP, you could do that with the following imaginary URL:
> > 
> > 	http://users.mcs.anl.gov/~allock/resources/sensors/coffem-mug? 
> > refresh=10
> > 
> > Requesting that URL may result in a nice data stream sending the  
> > current temperature in 10 second intervals.
> > Note that the path element does not necessarily have to map 
> to a file  
> > system path - refer i.e. to the J2EE Servlet specification that  
> > splits the path information into three elements:
> > - context path (a J2EE enterprise application)
> > - servlet path (a locator for servlets within a J2EE enterprise  
> > application)
> > - path info    (the residual URL path element)
> > All three elements concatenated form the original URL path 
> element;  
> > and the context path and servlet path may be null. The mapping is  
> > purely virtual and is specified in the EAR deployment descriptors.
> > 
> > >> I guess now that I think about it, your way works too.  
> As long as 
> > >> the query mechanism is there, as long as you don't send 
> a block the 
> > >> site doesn't support, you wont fail validation... I 
> don't like it, 
> > >> but unless we discover a bigger problem than that, I 
> guess it is an 
> > >> option :-).
> > >
> > > the trick is easy. you put in an element that you don't 
> define. you 
> > > then extend it and play around the way you like it, and 
> once you know 
> > > what you want, you just take it into your mainstream WSDL 
> as a proper 
> > > part of it. see our discussion/example in 
> > > https://uimon.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/SRMDev/XmlSolution
> > 
> > This URL requires authentication which I cannot provide for AFS...
> > 
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>>  - what about scheduling / planning aspects?  Do we want
> > >> to include
> > >>>> elements in this WSDL that specify rate (bandwidth),
> > >> quantity (file
> > >>>> size), and timing (START BY, FINISH BY, etc)
> > >>>
> > >>> our experience: individually for each transfer job: no.
> > >> that is very
> > >>> complicated and of questionable use.
> > >>> on the scale of the service itself as a service
> > >>> parameter/configuration: yes.
> > >>
> > >> I half agree with you.  Clearly the service, may want to 
> have limits 
> > >> that can be set.  In that regard, it is acting as a 
> resource manager 
> > >> and protecting the resource for which it is responsible, 
> much like a 
> > >> compute scheduler.  Btw, I would argue that this is 
> outside the scope
> > 
> > >> of this working group, since an external entity has no 
> need to be 
> > >> involved with that.  At most we might want to agree on 
> some state 
> > >> that such a service MAY (in the SPEC sense of the word) expose.
> > >>
> > >> However, it is not clear to me that requests per job are of 
> > >> questionable use.  Clearly they should be optional 
> elements, but if 
> > >> the submission has no such information, on what basis does the 
> > >> service make decisions when it has a resource 
> constraint?  I would 
> > >> also add priority to the list.  If I have multiple jobs 
> submitted, I 
> > >> may want to make sure that one of them gets service over 
> the others.
> > >
> > > ok, i was sloppy. it is true that you should be able to 
> influence the 
> > > priority of your transfers and maybe even their 
> speed/bandwidth within
> > 
> > > your allocated 'quota'.
> > 
> > Yes, I agree here as well. We're on the right track I 
> think, so let's  
> > fight over the details in the meetings. ;-)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> > 
>