[occi-wg] thought on interoperability vs integration

[Ignacio Martin Llorente]

Hi,

>
>> 2. You adopt the OCCI API, which would have commonality with other  
>> providers
>> 3. You support the OCCI API for interop but provide, e.g., GG  
>> specific
>> APIs and extensions, possibly in several styles
>
> Not sure about the difference between these two.  It seems fairly  
> subtle to
> me, but #3 is absolutely what I've been advocating all along.  I think
> vendors still need to compete.  If the core is easily extensible  
> then we can
> adopt it, but extend it for our particular needs.  Over time as  
> extensions
> make sense to move to the core they can.
>
> A tools vendor building on top of us will get the benefits of being  
> able to
> support the core easily across vendors.  Implementing some support for
> extensions will then not be as onerous.

Yes, Scenario #3 is our vision for OCCI API. SImilar scenarios have  
been achieved in the cotext if other OGF WGs. See for example DRMAA WG  
(http://www.drmaa.org), we created a specification and defined several  
bindings, and different technology providers adopted the new  
specification by implementing  one or several bindings, reporting  
about their implementation in experience reports. These job management  
systems compete in the market and provide some extensions to access  
specific functionality not provided by others. In any case, several  
tools and applications were created on top of the new core interface  
(see http://www.drmaa.org/stories.php), emerging a new ecosystem  
around the open standard.

See collection of documents (specifications, bindings and  
implementation reports) at http://www.drmaa.org/documents.php

Let me add, that some of the main technology providers were very  
reluctant to implement the standard, buy when they realized that the  
rest of providers were implementing the API, they started to implement  
the bindings. See implementations at http://www.drmaa.org/implementations.php

Cheers,

Ignacio