[OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
Peter G. Lane
lane at mcs.anl.gov
Wed Sep 6 12:50:53 CDT 2006
Christopher Smith wrote:
> Characterizing this issue as WS-RF vs WS-Transfer is misleading. I can't
> recall any discussions within this group where anybody advocated doing a
> WS-Transfer rendering for the BES interface. Well ... other than the WS-RF
> proponents who wrongly assumed that because some (like myself) were against
> the use of WS-RF, that must mean we were in favour of WS-Transfer. I also
> don't recall anybody advocating operations for modification, etc such as
> defined within WS-Transfer. To me this is a discussion of a resource
> modelling approach (built on WS-RF) vs a non resource modelling approach.
Just for the record, I wasn't trying to make this into a fairness issue between WSRF and WS-Transfer
just because WSRF isn't being equally represented and I'm from the WSRF camp. If some WSRF-like
operation was included I would have asked the same question. I also did bring this up before the
tracker existed, but nobody seemed interested in discussing it then. That said, whether a discussion
was had or not, having this operation makes WS-Transfer partly redundant. That's my main point in
all of this. It seemed silly to have two operations doing the exact same thing when minimal interop
IMHO doesn't warrant it. In other words, it was a cosmetic gripe.
>
> My main reason for not wanting to make use of one of the resource modelling
> approaches has to do with the burden of implementation. If Platform buys
> into one of these resource models, we no longer have to implement one simple
> spec and test compliance of that specification, but we need to implement and
> test compliance on a suite of specifications, for (in my opinion) no extra
> benefit. You might say that once you've implemented a resource modelling
> suite of specifications, you can use it over and over and thus amortize the
> cost of this implementation. But even at a small cost, it's not one that I'm
> willing to take, as the implementation of standards specifications is one
> feature in a sea of features that we implement from product release to
> product release.
Fair enough. Out of curiosity, though, if WSRF and WS-Transfer get reconciled, does this mean
Platform will still opt not to implement a second spec? If on the other hand they would be willing
to implement such a spec, would they be ok with deprecating the GetAttributesDocument operation at
that time?
Peter
>
> -- Chris
>
>
>
> On 06/9/06 07:56, "Peter G. Lane" <lane at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:
>
>> If it's about fear of reopening the dialog, then I'd appreciate if someone
>> could at least add
>> comments to the two trackers addressing the issues raised.
>>
>> Ian can push for reopening this particular issue if he wants; but I just want
>> to know why we're
>> advocating WS-Transfer in spirit if not in name, and why aggregation of
>> resource attributes is not a
>> concern to anyone else. As long as someone has a reason for these issues that
>> I raised in the
>> tracker, I'm fine. I don't expect to get everything to go my way, and I'm open
>> to being convinced of
>> alternate points of view. I just don't like being ignorant, especially when
>> I'll have to implement
>> the spec someday.
>>
>> On the other hand, if nobody has a good answer for the issues, I think Ian is
>> perfectly valid in
>> asking for it to be reopened as apparently the issues weren't actually
>> addressed as they should have
>> been.
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> Mark Morgan wrote:
>>> Well, I guess the thing that confuses me is whether or not it is SOP to
>>> re-open an issue that was discussed previously because a new person has
>>> re-raised that issue. I'll bow to whatever the majority thinks is best of
>>> course, but it seems to me that you can't reopen an issue everytime a new
>>> person re-raises it or you risk the possibility of continuously cycling on
>>> it. New information should always be considered, but if an issue gets
>>> re-raised that has already been discussed fully and voted on, then it
>>> doesn't make sense to re-discuss it. Just my 2 cents worth...
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org
>>>> [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 9:39 PM
>>>> To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group; 'Mail list for
>>>> ogsa-bes-wg working group'; ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
>>>> Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
>>>>
>>>> Mark:
>>>>
>>>> I guess that I am asking that we re-open the issue, then.
>>>>
>>>> Ian.
>>>>
>>>> At 07:47 PM 9/5/2006 -0400, Mark Morgan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure what level of "addressing" is meant here, but my
>>>> recollection/belief was that it was addressed in the
>>>> group in so much as the
>>>> topic was discussed at the last face-to-face and that
>>>> the appearance of the
>>>> GetAttributesDocument was the result of that
>>>> discussion. We haven't as a
>>>> group discussed the email that Peter sent out yet but
>>>> it is my belief that
>>>> doing so is essentially a rehash of discussions previously had.
>>>>
>>>> -Mark
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org
>>>>> [mailto:ogsa-bes-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Ian Foster
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:42 PM
>>>>> To: Mail list for ogsa-bes-wg working group;
>>>> ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions
>>>>>
>>>>> Has Peter's comment been discussed?
>>>>>
>>>>> He advocates (I believe) that we should not include the
>>>>> GetAttributesDocument operation. Instead, any particular BES
>>>>> should choose (if they wish) to provide access to attributes
>>>>> via an appropriate resource model-specific operations.
>>>>>
>>>>> * A WS-Transfer-based BES would use GET
>>>>> * A WSRF-based BES would use WS-ResourceProperties
>>>>> * A resource-model-free BES might define a
>>>>> GetAttributesDocument operation
>>>>> * etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> This seems a good proposal to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ian.
>>>>>
>>>>> At 03:09 PM 9/2/2006 -0600, Peter G. Lane wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) Why are we still essentially advocating
>>>>> WS-Transfer's attribute model by having the
>>>>> GetAttributesDocument operation? In my opinion it is not
>>>>> necessary for minimal interop, and makes WS-Transfer's Get
>>>>> operation redundant. Is part of the problem that we haven't
>>>>> defined any interop standards yet?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________________________
>>>>> Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
>>>> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/>
>>>>> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute:
>>>>> www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/>
>>>> <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/> &
>>>>> www.ci.anl.gov <http://www.ci.anl.gov/>
>>>> <http://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 <http://www.globus.org/>
>>>>> <http://www.globus.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>>>> ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________________________
>>>> Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
>>>> <http://ianfoster.typepad.com/> Computation Institute:
>>>> www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/> &
>>>> www.ci.anl.gov <http://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
>>>> <http://www.globus.org/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>>> ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
>>>
>> --
>> ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
>> ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
>> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
>
> --
> ogsa-bes-wg mailing list
> ogsa-bes-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3804 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-bes-wg/attachments/20060906/5e55a650/attachment-0002.bin
More information about the ogsa-bes-wg
mailing list