[ogsa-rss-wg] more thoughts about the EPS

[Donal K. Fellows]

Arvid Norberg wrote:
> Keeping in mind that the released wsdl document is out dated,
> the ExecutionPlannerResult port type is supposed to include
> GetResourceProperty, right? Since the WS-Resource does have
> properties.

Yes. I think it may be implicit in supporting WS-ResourceLifetime but
I'm not sure about that.

> And, talking about the WS-ResourceProperties, it would be nice if
> the specification would be a bit more explicit on wich are writable
> and read only.

Good point. Is the wording in Draft 2 (I think I've uploaded it) good
enough?

FWIW, no property is required to be writable at all, which is a good
thing in part because I've seen complaints from people about the
semantics of WS-ResourceProperties in the writable properties area. I
don't want to deal with that hassle and none of them are really needed
anyway, so I'm happy to leave well alone. However, some properties are
constrained to be read-only.

> Regarding the interface. Would it be usable to include a free text
> string in the request for plans (GetExecutionPlans) that would
> specify the domain of information servers to look among. It could
> for example be a list of URLs to information servers to use for
> a particular session.
> 
> The use case would be to have the possibility to have an EPS
> service that isn't tied to any particular resources or any
> information servers in particular. The service could then be
> made available for anyone to use/try out from home.

I've been considering this information to be something that would be
passed in during the creation of the EPS resource, which is not a part
of the lifecycle that the standard considers. Either that, or it could
be an implementation-specific aspect/extension to the request. Both
ways, it is outside the scope of the spec and I'd hope (with my "things
should be interoperable" hat on) that anyone doing such extensions
should remember to do so without requiring the clients to know anything
about them, perhaps finding the EPS from some resource registry instead
(or via some kind of RNS, or ...)

In short, good idea but (hopefully) out of scope. :-)

Donal.