[GRIDRPC-WG] New version of the document

[Hidemoto Nakada]

Andre and Steven,

The following is my opinion.

- SAGA l/f is cool. for the users who want to use several capabilities of Grid,
  SAGA l/f will ease their burden.

- on the other hand, SAGA i/f is too rich for the users who just want to
  use one capability from the Grid, such as GridRPC.
  Without SAGA l/f, the API could be designed as simple as possible

- once the specific API (such as GridRPC) is specified, to change the i/f
  to adopt SAGA l/f will be straight forward and relatively easy.
  l/f is not essential, for me.

- therefore, in my opinion, the best way to specify an API on a
specific area is that,
  -- specify the API in a way that is as simple as possible,
  -- then, adopt some l/f for the API if it is required.

regards,

- Hidemoto.

On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Andre Merzky <andre at merzky.net> wrote:
>
> Quoting [Steven Newhouse] (Feb 22 2009):
>>
>> Hi Hidemoto,
>>
>> > We've never had such discussion at all.
>
> Well, the SAGA group had this discussion - also with the
> DRMAA and GridCPR folx btw.  And yes, we hoped that, at some
> point, people would simply adopt our L&F part, and add
> packages.
>
> But at the end its up to the individual groups if they want
> to do that, or not.  Let a thousand flowers bloom, right?
> Oh well, three... ;-)
>
> Anyway, SAGA people will certainly try to add an update to
> their RPC package, which also incorporates the data
> management features.  In previous OGF discussions, we
> already checked if that is expressable/implementable in SAGA
> (it is).
>
> As Hidemoto said, that would be on top of GridRPC.  Yes,
> duplication of effort to some extent.
>
> Cheers, Andre.
>
>
>> > What makes you think like that?
>>
>> >From conversations I've had at past OGFs! If the conversation has not taken place then it should. Please try and find some time with the SAGA folks in Catania.
>>
>> > It might be possible to adopt the SAGA look and feel, but
>> > we are not interested in the part now.
>> > For us, the part is not essential.
>>
>> I would like a stronger reason to present to the standards council than the group feels 'that it its not a good idea'.
>>
>> Steven
> --
> Nothing is ever easy.
>