[jsdl-wg] Issues for todays phone conference

[Michel Drescher]

Hi Karl and others,

On 12 Apr 2005, at 14:00, Karl Czajkowski wrote:
> Ali: I am partial to the opening idea, e.g. that the posix application
> element get its own user and group IDs that _only_ mean the user/group
> settings for the execution.  I wouldn't want to see them get mixed up
> in more traditional notions of user, e.g. the user or "account" to
> which the job charges are accounted.

Yes, add me to the supporters of that idea.

> Even though these will sometimes (often?) be the same string, that
> doesn't mean they are the same concept.  I think it is better to
> organize the support for concepts based on how they are related to one
> another in use, e.g. the posix set of parameters are separated from
> the resource selection criteria, rather than to how they might appear
> similar through the haze of abstraction.

And again, I second that.

> I guess I am realizing that the User section bothers me because it is
> trying to be a "stovepipe" abstraction among a set of more horizontal
> "layers" like resource selection and job configuration. I think better
> layers to go with these would be "authentication and authorization
> tokens, assertions, etc." and "accounting".  Each of these may have
> some aspect of "userness" in them. :-/

I remember somebody (unfortunately, I forgot who it was) stating that 
XML is _NOT_ object oriented, and trying to apply OO based patterns to 
XML will bitterly fail.
I think this is a classic example. (And I explicitly do not exclude 
myself from making that error over and over again.)

Cheers,
Michel