[ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view

[Marvin Theimer]

Hi;

 

This is in response to several emails that were sent out on the subject
of what things to define in JSDL and what things to define in profiles
that layer on top of JSDL.

 

I understand the desire to avoid restricting JSDL to just the HPC use
cases.  That said, actual implementations of JSDL that desire to be
interoperable will have to pick precise definitions for what each JSDL
element means.  All I'm advocating is that we stick to good software
engineering principles and avoid ending up in situations where someone
who wants to run both HPC and non-HPC workloads has to needlessly deal
with context-sensitive definitions of JSDL elements.  Along those lines,
I like your suggestion of defining a base profile document that seeks to
specify those things that we believe are "universally" definable across
all workloads.  I haven't, however, thought about how large - or how
small - such a base profile would be.

 

Marvin.

 

________________________________

From: A S McGough [mailto:asm at doc.ic.ac.uk] 
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:47 AM
To: Marvin Theimer
Cc: Andreas Savva; Michel Drescher; Donal K. Fellows; JSDL Working
Group; ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org; Ed Lassettre; Ming Xu (WINDOWS)
Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes
to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view

 

Matching in with some of the comments from Andreas the JSDL
specification is the language and not how it is used. If there are
mistakes in the language these should be fixed. That said there may be
some justification for writing a base profile document which all
profiles (such as HPC) should conform with. Thoughts?

steve..

Marvin Theimer wrote: 

Hi;
 
If the HPC profile defines the semantics of something and the JSDL spec
doesn't then that implies that some other profile is free to define the
semantics differently.  Is that really what you want to allow?  That
seems like it will invite unexpected mishaps for anyone who tries to run
both HPC and other workloads on a grid. 
 
Marvin.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva at jp.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:10 PM
To: Michel Drescher
Cc: Donal K. Fellows; Marvin Theimer; JSDL Working Group;
ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org; Ed Lassettre; Ming Xu (WINDOWS)
Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes
to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view
 
Comments inline.
 
Michel Drescher wrote:
  

	Donal K. Fellows wrote:
	    

		Marvin Theimer wrote:
		      

			If we narrow the definitions of mountpoint and
mountsource enough
			        

and
  

			precisely describe their semantics then we might
arrive at something
			that could be fairly widely used.  I'm thinking
of things like
			        

saying
  

			that you can't navigate "out" of a file system
via "cd ..", etc. 
			This is definitely something to explore. 
			        

		Change "can't" to "shouldn't" and I'd agree. I don't
regard the mount
		stuff as being a way of describing security enforcement
points.
		      

Systems
  

		can do it that way, but at least some won't.
		      

	+1 from me. In fact, I think this should be part of JSDL in a
	"maintenance release" sort of publication anyway.
	    

 
-1 from me for adding this in JSDL. It is not a language issue. I do
think the HPC Profile should probably speak to this with respect to the
execution environment that a job should expect.
 
  

		In fact, I'd be happy enough with the profile stating
that paths in
		      

JSDL
  

		documents should not contain either the "." or the ".."
elements at
		      

all.
  

		That's a fairly strong requirement and guarantees that
the job won't
		fail on systems where your style of semantics are
enforced.
		      

	Again, +1
	(and having it normatively mentioned in the JSDL publication)
	 
	    

 
I too see this is a profiling issue. I have no problem for the HPC
profile to make a stronger statement than the JSDL spec on this as a
security consideration.
So -1 from me for adding this in the JSDL spec normatively.
 
  






-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr A. Stephen McGough                       http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~asm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technical Coordinator, London e-Science Centre, Imperial College London,
Department of Computing, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK
tel: +44 (0)207-594-8409                        fax: +44 (0)207-581-8024
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/jsdl-wg/attachments/20060620/99cec99a/attachment.html