[glue-wg] glue2 cloud examples

[Warren Smith]

I don't really understand your comments below - you seem to be putting me in the position that I see you in: I'm suggesting that we use GLUE 2 as it is (and I described how I did that for IaaS clouds) while this proposal is to make some major additions to GLUE2 to support clouds. All I was wondering was that if we want to make such major additions, whether it would be better to rework the GLUE 2 model to better support them and similar situations. I'm perfectly fine not doing this.

In fact, my last email suggested that "you just define your own schema" (with you being EGI) by specifying the cloud extensions to GLUE 2 that EGI wants to define.

If we want to create a GLUE 2.1 to standardize some cloud extensions, then why don't we consider how I represent IaaS clouds as my counter proposal. We can see if we can reach consensus on some middle ground (which might be using existing GLUE 2 entities with Extensions where possible and adding a few new entities where there isn't any fit in the current model).


Warren

________________________________________
From: stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk [stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk]
Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 5:53 AM
To: Warren Smith; salvatore.pinto at egi.eu; glue-wg at ogf.org
Subject: RE: [glue-wg] glue2 cloud examples

Warren Smith [mailto:wsmith at tacc.utexas.edu] said:
> Yep, we couldn't define a GLUE 3 in a short amount of time.

I'd like to reiterate that I think any idea of a GLUE 3 is a red herring. For one thing I don't see any reason for it, in the sense of there being problems that can't be solved within the GLUE 2 framework. Secondly I think the timescale is prohibitive - GLUE 2 took 2.5 years to define and another 3-4 years to implement. Thirdly, at least EGI and WLCG no longer have any effort to engage with such a thing, so if other projects follow that route they'll lose the interoperability that was the main goal of GLUE. If you really don't want to use GLUE 2 I'd suggest that you just define your own schema, which you could presumably do a lot faster.

> However, I'm not really for formalizing what you've described as GLUE
> 2.1. If we want to make it an official new version of GLUE, I would
> push to use the existing GLUE 2 entities wherever possible and just use
> the extension points in those entities instead of defining new entities
> (as I did in my approach).

Again I think the issue is interoperability. EGI could certainly go ahead and define its own extended GLUE 2 and use it within the project, but then you lose the standardisation that comes with the OGF. Conversely, if the WG wants to have something standard then it needs to be a GLUE 2.1 that goes through the official process.

Stephen

--
Scanned by iCritical.