[ogsa-bes-wg] Create a revised BES spec draft that reflects the decisions of the July F2F mtg

[Marvin Theimer]

Hi;

Another comment/question on Dave Snelling's proposal: I don't really understand how it avoids distinct renderings since it is still the case that we have at least 3 different WSDLs, one per rendering option:

*        WSRF version that employs WS-ResourceProperties, etc.

*        WS-Transfer version that employs WS-Transfer, etc.

*        Resource model-free version that employs an explicit QueryStatus operation (and potentially additional QueryFoo operations).

It is certainly the case that there is a "core" set of operations that is common to all 3 interface choices and we should certainly write the spec that way.  But don't we still end up with 3 different rendering versions?

Marvin.

________________________________
From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster at mcs.anl.gov]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 2:20 PM
To: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Create a revised BES spec draft that reflects the decisions of the July F2F mtg

Marvin:

I've claimed the pen on the document, but have been finding it hard to find time to make a lot of progress. I will try to do some work on it tomorrow morning.

That said, I want to mention an important development that Dave Snelling may or may not have mentioned on calls. Dave argues that we can avoid the need for distinct renderings by defining our interfaces carefully. The basic idea, as I understand it, is that:

a) the "core interface" has the basic operations for creating jobs, modifying their status, etc., and an operation for grabbing all of the factory state;

b) then, if desired, a WSRF service (for example) can also implement the WS-ResourceProperties, WS-ResourceLifetime, WS-BaseNotification, operations;

c) while a WS-Resource service would implement the WS-Resource equivalents of those.

So we exploit the power of interface composition to avoid the need for separate bindings.

The only problematic issue, as I understand it, is that of faults. The question is how we render faults. The WSRF binding must (by the spec) use WS-BaseFaults. If we can all agree to use that, then we are ok. If not, then we still have problems.

Ian.

At 01:29 PM 8/4/2006 -0700, Marvin Theimer wrote:

x-ms-exchange-organization-recipient-p2-type: To
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Hi;

The HPC Profile (HPCP) work depends critically on BES.  The recent face-to-face meeting at Argonne made substantial progress in terms of reshaping the proposed BES specification in a way that would make it suitable for supporting the HPCP on top of it.  Are there plans to generate a new revision of the BES specification draft in the near future?  As soon as the revised version comes into existence we'll be able to seriously start doing the actual HPCP work (which will take place on the hpcp-ogsa-wg mailing list and in weekly telecom calls that will be starting shortly).

Since the HPCP WG is effectively gated on this revised spec, having a draft of a revised spec sometime in the next week or so would be really helpful.  I would be willing to help rewrite the BES spec if that would be useful to the BES WG.

Marvin.

_______________________________________________________________
   Ian Foster, Director, Computation Institute
Argonne National Laboratory & University of Chicago
Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439
Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637
Tel: +1 630 252 4619.  Web: www.ci.uchicago.edu<http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>.
      Globus Alliance: www.globus.org<http://www.globus.org/>.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060816/c16ed491/attachment.html