[ogsa-bes-wg] BES spec

[Michel Drescher]

Folks, Dave,

David Snelling wrote:
> Chris,
> 
> On 3 Jul 2006, at 18:49, Christopher Smith wrote:
> 
>> Another rendering for this, which Marvin and I explored a little bit when
>> writing our document, is:
>>
>> <ActivityState BaseState="running">
>>     <SubState StateName="profile1:Stagingin>
>>         <SubState StateName="profile1:Held"/>
>>     </SubState>
>> </ActivityState>
> 
> I don't think we need two different tags. ActivityState only should 
> work, as the substate concept is captured structurally. My personal 
> preference is still for the subtyping approach, but I can't see myself 
> winning on that one.

+1 on having one element only.

>> It would also be nice to support being in multiple sub states (if it 
>> makes
>> sense) because of various profiles and operations, so if (for example) 
>> I was
>> in the above state, but the user also suspended the job, I could be in:
>>
>> <ActivityState BaseState="running">
>>     <SubState StateName="profile1:Stagingin>
>>         <SubState StateName="profile1:Held"/>
>>     </SubState>
>>     <SubState StateName="profile2:Suspended"/>
>> </ActivityState>
> 
> This is both interesting and very scary. On the interesting side this 
> make sense:
> 
> <ActivityState StateName="running">
>     < ActivityState StateName="profile1:StagingIn/>
>     < ActivityState StateName="profile1:Held/>
> </ActivityState>
> 
> The problems I think will arise when we start to describe the semantics. 

... let alone the heroic and at the same time cumbersome task to 
maintain a list of incompatible activity states that come from two (or 
even more) different profiles.

> It is scary enough that I don't want to try thinking about it with out 
> others around and a beer.

As you know, I almost always agree on "spirited" discussions. :-)

Cheers,
Michel

-- 
Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
+44 20 8606 4834