[glue-wg] telecon - 31 Oct 2007

[Sergio Andreozzi]

Hi Steve,

Fisher, SM (Steve) ha scritto:
> I am still not too happy with the service/endpoint split however I do
> see some benefits.
>   
real use cases will show if we go for the right path, in a few telecons 
it should be everything more clear
> I would very much like to see the service data and related services
> preserved from GLUE 1.3. The "OtherInfo" field is not sufficient as it
> cannot be used efficiently. Specifically:
>   
the no.9 draft inclues section 4, Auxiliaries Entities, they extend the 
concept of ServiceData to every GLUE Class (called now Extension)
> - I would like to see a separate entity ServiceData with two attributes
> Key and Value and a 0 to many relationship to service.
>   
covered by Extension as a general mechanism
> - I would like to see a many to many (directed) relationship between
> services to represent the fact that any service may have a set of
> related services. The precise meaning of that relationship is to be
> defined by the publisher of that information. Note that it is essential
> that it is considered to be directional.
>   
ok, I will add this; do you think that this relationship should have 
attributes?
> Both of the above features are assumed by the SAGA ServiceDiscovery API
> which is about to be sent out for public comment. It is currently
> exploited in GLUE 1.3 by the data management people
>   
ok, we'll cover them for sure; please re-check on next draft.

and from your following email:

>The Quality level, if we *really* want it belongs to the endpoint rather
>than the service

this was raised during the telecon; at the moment we've put in both service and endpoint; to be cleaned-up based on examples

> The complexity is redundanct - and therefore evil

there was discussion also on this; the general principle is that to have some summary attribute that could in theory be derived from finer-grained info can be useful to simplify the queries; in particular, this attribute is strongly required by NorduGrid; they have something similar in their current production information service and consider it very useful

>The endpoint looks rather big! All references to xxxVendor should be
>changed to avoid the word vendor as many software providers do not sell
>their products.
ok, we'll discuss this next Thursday.

Cheers, Sergio