[OGSA-BES-WG] Tracker Resolution Descriptions

[Christopher Smith]

On 06/9/06 10:50, "Peter G. Lane" <lane at mcs.anl.gov> wrote:

>> 
>> 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?
> 
I believe that the reconciliation will have a positive effect, in that it
will give tooling vendors a better feeling about these specifications, and
hopefully they will implement some abstractions that we can use. My position
is that I want to stay out of the WS tools business.

I have no problem with updating specs later, including the deprecation of
operations, etc. I see it as the natural evolution of the standard.

-- Chris