[glue-wg] VOTE by 8/1: GLUE 2.1 for describing cloud resources?

Tue Jul 29 04:28:32 EDT 2014

Dear all,

The only problem I see if we go for a 2.1 version is that we need to understand how to deploy all this in the hierarchical BDII model. What happens if a site BDII hasn´t upgraded the schema to 2.1, it only understands 2.0, and it queries a cloud resource which supports 2.1? will it fail? Or will it fail to publish only those new entities that do not exist yet in 2.0? The same scenario goes for a 2.0 top BDII trying to query 2.1 site BDIIs. I guess until the whole grid hasn´t moved to 2.1 we may have some inconsistent things published around. I haven´t tested this so I´m not sure what happens when you want to publish something in LDAP that is not declared in the LDAP schema file.

I guess this is the reason why we had two different LDAP trees for GLUE 1.3 and GLUE 2.0, right?

Regards,
Maria

> -----Original Message-----
> From: glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf
> Of david.meredith at stfc.ac.uk
> Sent: 29 July 2014 10:18
> To: John-Paul Navarro; glue-wg at ogf.org
> Subject: Re: [glue-wg] VOTE by 8/1: GLUE 2.1 for describing cloud resources?
> 
> Hi all,
> I would be in favour of adding new 2.1 cloud entities provided:
> 
> *	2.1 only adds new (cloud) implementations that are derived from the 2.0
> abstract entities.
> *	There are no changes to the 2.0 entities, especially no changes to the
> core abstract entities.
> 
> This is important for the XSD rendering (and other renderings too I imagine). For
> an XSD rendering, the new cloud entities would be defined using a new
> namespace defined in a separate XSD. The new cloud entities would need to
> extend the existing abstract BaseTypes defined by the 2.0 element inheritance
> mechanism.  An XML instance doc would still use the existing 2.0 '<GLUE2>' root
> element, and would import the new cloud entities to be nested under '<GLUE2>'
> using the existing SubstitutionGroup mechanism.  When validating an instance
> doc, both the 2.0 XSD and 2.1 cloud extensions XSD would be needed for
> validation (quite normal).
> 
> Thanks,
> David
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: JP Navarro [mailto:navarro at mcs.anl.gov]
> > Sent: 23 July 2014 16:36
> > To: OGF GLUE Working Group
> > Subject: [glue-wg] VOTE by 8/1: GLUE 2.1 for describing cloud resources?
> >
> > GLUE Working Group:
> >
> > We have been discussing two options for using the GLUE schema to describe
> > cloud services.  You may review these options here:
> > - http://redmine.ogf.org/dmsf_files/13294?download=
> >
> > By August 1, please vote for one of the following options:
> >
> > 1) Use GLUE 2.0 with a Community Practice Profile that details how to
> describe
> > cloud infrastructure using the existing 2.0 entities
> > 2) Develop GLUE 2.1 adding new Cloud Computing entities (would be 100%
> > backward compatible with GLUE 2.0 for non-Cloud entities)
> >
> > For reference, a preliminary GLUE 2.1 Specification is available here:
> > - http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/glue-wg/2014-January/001527.html
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > JP
> > _______________________________________________
> > glue-wg mailing list
> > glue-wg at ogf.org
> > https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.
> _______________________________________________
> glue-wg mailing list
> glue-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg