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

[Ian Foster]

Marvin:

David's proposal, which is realized in the current draft, is that we define 
BES to just have "GetStatus" and "GetProperties" operations (as well as 
CreateActivity etc.). We can then compose WS-Transfer operations or WSRF 
operations, if desired, in a particular BES implementation.

This seems to me to be a really nice solution to the "problem" that we 
thought we had, in that it avoids the need for multiple renderings.

The one tricky issue is the rendering of faults. In the current BES 
document, we use WS-BaseFaults. You report that the Microsoft WS team has 
problems with that. I don't think we should let this be a show stopper, as 
I don't think it is essential that we use WS-BaseFaults in BES. At the same 
time, WS-BaseFaults was introduced for a reason. Thus I'd like to propose 
that we proceed as follows:

a) We set up a phone call with the Microsoft WS team and the WS-BaseFaults 
guys to talk this over, in case it turns out that we can in fact all agree 
that WS-BaseFaults is useful.

b) In the (likely) case that the Microsoft WS team still doesn't want to 
see WS-BaseFaults included, we check with the BES team that it is ok to use 
a different fault model for the BES core vs. the specs that might be 
composed with the BES core, such as WSRF.

Thoughts?

Ian.


At 05:17 PM 8/16/2006 -0700, Marvin Theimer wrote:

>Hi;
>
>
>
>Another comment/question on Dave Snellings proposal: I dont 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 coreset of operations that is 
>common to all 3 interface choices and we should certainly write the spec 
>that way.  But dont 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.
>       Globus Alliance: www.globus.org.
>

_______________________________________________________________
Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
Computation Institute: www.ci.uchicago.edu & www.ci.anl.gov
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 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060818/66d69472/attachment.html