[gin-data] SRM interop plan

[William E. Allcock]

Ah, ok.  I understand.

Thanks for the clarification.

Bill 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Sim [mailto:asim at lbl.gov] 
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 12:15 PM
> To: allcock at mcs.anl.gov; 'Jensen, J (Jens)'; 'Aleksandr Konstantinov'
> Cc: Erwin.Laure at cern.ch; gin-data at ggf.org; 'Srm-Devel (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: [gin-data] SRM interop plan
> 
> Sorry if it sounded like trouble coming from the globus 
> services. It's not.
> It's our component based on gt4 libs with the same web 
> services interface as
> we had with gt3.2 (a simple ws interface without an array).  
> We went through
> globus discussion list, and as in my earlier email, we're 
> trying to come up
> with the correct questions and code samples so that Jarek can help us
> properly.
> --Alex
> 
> | -----Original Message-----
> | From: William E. Allcock [mailto:allcock at mcs.anl.gov] 
> | Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 9:40 AM
> | To: asim at lbl.gov; 'Jensen, J (Jens)'; 'Aleksandr Konstantinov'
> | Cc: Erwin.Laure at cern.ch; gin-data at ggf.org; 'Srm-Devel (E-mail)'
> | Subject: RE: [gin-data] SRM interop plan
> | 
> | Please be more precise in what problem you are seeing.  GT3.2 
> | client and server could mean any client or server.  Which 
> | clients and servers are giving you trouble?  I know of no 
> | known compatibility issue with the GridFTP clients and 
> | servers from those versions.
> | 
> | Bill
> | 
> | > -----Original Message-----
> | > From: owner-gin-data at ggf.org 
> | [mailto:owner-gin-data at ggf.org] On Behalf 
> | > Of Alex Sim
> | > Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 11:31 AM
> | > To: 'Jensen, J (Jens)'; 'Aleksandr Konstantinov'
> | > Cc: Erwin.Laure at cern.ch; gin-data at ggf.org; 'Srm-Devel (E-mail)'
> | > Subject: RE: [gin-data] SRM interop plan
> | > 
> | > Recently we encountered a problem in communication between
> | > GT3.2 and GT4
> | > client and server. GT4 client doesn't reach the GT3.2 
> | server any more, 
> | > nor vice versa, through the same interface, whereas they do 
> | > communicate within the same GT versions. I'm not sure if 
> | it's related 
> | > to this GSS module issue, and there seem few issues around 
> | framework 
> | > and versions.
> | > These are important issues that we as a collaboration have 
> | to resolve 
> | > for our interoperation and compatibility. Let's try to 
> compile the 
> | > list and discuss in one of the conf calls and/or meetings.
> | > --Alex
> | > 
> | > | -----Original Message-----
> | > | From: Jensen, J (Jens) [mailto:J.Jensen at rl.ac.uk]
> | > | Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 12:51 AM
> | > | To: asim at lbl.gov; Aleksandr Konstantinov
> | > | Cc: Erwin.Laure at cern.ch; gin-data at ggf.org
> | > | Subject: RE: [gin-data] SRM interop plan
> | > | 
> | > | Hi Alex,
> | > | 
> | > | This is because in Globus 2 at least, it turns out that 
> | if you build 
> | > | your server/client with GLOBUS_IO_MODULE then it is apparently 
> | > | incompatible with servers/clients built on top of the 
> lower level 
> | > | module GLOBUS_GSSAPI_MODULE [module names from memory so may be 
> | > | slightly wrong].
> | > | 
> | > | Now Aleksandr discovered this independently and dug a 
> bit deeper 
> | > | than we had done, but it still appears that these are 
> | incompatible.
> | > | 
> | > | This is mainly important for the SOAP stuff because as 
> you say it 
> | > | goes via HTTPG.  The de-facto standard in LCG is the 
> | GSSAPI module 
> | > | approach.
> | > | 
> | > | Even if you don't care about HTTP as a data transport protocol, 
> | > | Aleksandr's point is still valid.  It's a question of testing 
> | > | different implementations of GSI sockets.
> | > | 
> | > | Cheers,
> | > | 			--jens
> | > | 
> | > 
> | > 
> | > 
> 
> 
>