[occi-wg] thought on interoperability vs integration

[Alexis Richardson]

Ignacio, Randy,

Thanks!

So this is good.  We agree that *extensions* and other bindings can be
defined at the edges of the system, where the provider controls the
interface and has integration needs specific to them.  Some of the
integration and extension mechanisms could even be provided by common
libraries (eg XML tooling if the core format is not XML, or vice
versa).  But we still keep to one interoperable core.

Any other comments on this point?

alexis




On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Ignacio Martin Llorente
<llorente at dacya.ucm.es> wrote:
> 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
>