[jsdl-wg] Future plans for JSDL

[Lee, William]

In the parallel extension we have created in GridSAM. We have a new
element called <mpi:MPIApplication/> that extends the
jsdl:posix:POSIXApplication_Type. Therefore the MPIApplication inherits
the arguments, executable, etc. with the additional elements to specify
parallelism. 

Roughly....

<xsd:complexType name="MPIApplicationType">
    	<xsd:complexContent>
    		<xsd:extension base="jsdl-posix:POSIXApplication_Type">
    			<xsd:sequence>
    				<xsd:element ref="ProcessorCount"/>
    			</xsd:sequence>
    		</xsd:extension>
    	</xsd:complexContent>
</xsd:complexType>

<xsd:element name="ProcessorCount" type="xsd:positiveInteger"/>
<xsd:element name="MPIApplication" type="MPIApplicationType"/> 

William

--- William Lee - Software Coordinator ---
--- London e-Science Centre, Imperial College London ---
A: Room 380, Department of Computing, Imperial College London,  Huxley
Building, South Kensington campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK
E: wwhl at doc.ic.ac.uk | william at imageunion.com
W: www.lesc.ic.ac.uk | www.imageunion.com
P: +44(0)20 7594 8310
F: +44(0)20 7581 8024
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-jsdl-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-jsdl-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf Of
Donal K. Fellows
Sent: 23 February 2006 09:11
To: JSDL WG
Subject: Re: [jsdl-wg] Future plans for JSDL

A S McGough wrote:
> 3) Prioritise the items. From the session parallel jobs seemed to be 
> the thing most people wanted next.

Just a quick note to say that the main reason for doing the parallel
jobs stuff next (probably starting from the base proposed by the people
from Barcelona; they've identified the stuff that's needed after all) is
that otherwise there'll be several different groups doing it themselves
in an incompatible way. To me, that says it is an *excellent* idea to
foster a standard extension for this and to expedite this. OK, I think
other extensions/improvements are more important in the grand scheme of
things, but the fact that people are doing it now forces our hand.

Looking at the parallel proposal, I have to ask how it is supposed to be
combined with the POSIX extension, since without that it's not going to
work (still need command-line args, env-vars, etc.) Once we've nailed
that down, I think it will be just A Simple Matter Of Writing. :-)

Donal.