[ogsa-wg] RE: Modeling State: Technical Questions

[Ian Foster]

Savas:

I think your email misses the point of the current discussion.

Of course, as you point out, if I have a handle of some sort for a job (a 
WS-Addressing EPR, as in WSRF/WS-Transfer, or a job-id, as you advocate 
below), then I can include several of these in a request to the job factory 
asking for some operation to be performed on them all. I don't believe that 
anyone's debating that. But that's not the topic of the recent thread.

What Mark and Karl are discussing is how you would express more abstract 
requests such as "kill all jobs that have consumed more than one hour's CPU 
time." This is a question of query languages, I presume, not modeling of 
job ids.

Ian.

At 01:10 PM 4/5/2005 +0100, Savas Parastatidis wrote:
>Dear all,
>
>I think something needs to be clarified with regards to handling
>multiple jobs with one message. The beauty of document-oriented
>interactions is that you can do things like...
>
><job-details-request>
>   <job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-001</job-id>
>   <job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-010</job-id>
>   <job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-002</job-id>
>   <job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-029</job-id>
></job-details-request>
>
>Or
>
><job-suspend-request>
>   <job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-002</job-id>
>   <job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-005</job-id>
>   <job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-008</job-id>
></job-suspend-request>
>
>The schema for the above document can allow anything from 0 to N number
>of <job-id> elements.
>
>What WS-RF and WS-Transfer and REST are doing is require that each
>message be directed to only one resource. As a result, when it comes to
>defining groups of resources, additional resources (representing
>collections) have to be created. Populating and managing the collections
>require additional messages.
>
>The WS-RF/Ws-Transfer/REST model is a special case of the
>document-oriented model I described above...
>
><!-- just one resource all the time -->
><job-suspend-request>
>   <job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-002</job-id>
></job-suspend-request>
>
>In the WS-RF/WS-Transfer case the job ID will have to be part of the
>wsa:To (wsa -> WS-Addressing) header. In REST, it is the URI on which
>the operations are called (if we are using HTTP and the HTTP verbs, then
>the URI usually has the 'http' prefix).
>
>An example, of a WS-Addresing EPR...
>
><my:MyEndpointReference>
>   <wsa:Address> urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-002</wsa:Address>
></my:MyEndpointReference>
>
>Please note that the address doesn't have to carry transport/transfer
>specific semantics (i.e. it doesn't have to be an 'http' URI). The above
>would require a registry look up if that's necessary or perhaps a P2P
>network that will know how to direct the message to its destination
>based only on the above information. The sender of the message may never
>actually see the transport-specific address of the receiving service.
>
>This means that a SOAP msg like the one bellow will have to be sent...
>
><soap:Envelope>
>   <soap:Header>
>     <wsa:To>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-002</wsa:To>
>   </soap:Header>
>   <soap:Body>
>     <job:job-suspend-request />
>   </soap:Body>
></soap:Envelope>
>
>Well... it turns out that this can by the special case of a message that
>looks like this...
>
><soap:Envelope>
>   <soap:Header>
>     <wsa:To>urn:ogsa:job:service:Newcastle-Job-Service</wsa:To>
>     <!-- again... a registry lookup although
>          http://ncl.ac.uk/job-service could have also been used -->
>   </soap:Header>
>   <soap:Body>
>     <job:job-suspend-request>
>      <job:job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-002</job:job-id>
>      <job:job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-003</job:job-id>
>      <job:job-id>urn:ogsa:job:guid:bla-bla-bla-004</job:job-id>
>     </job:job-suspend-request>
>   </soap:Body>
></soap:Envelope>
>
>What WS-RF and WS-Transfer seem to be doing is to expose to the wire the
>programming abstraction that most of us are used to (i.e. calling
>methods on an object). As a result, systems based on a special case are
>designed rather than the more general case. It's been our argument all
>along that this may not be the most efficient way of designing systems
>in general (perhaps in certain application domains the WS-RF/WS-Transfer
>approach may be appropriate) but I am prepared to be corrected on this
>:-)
>
>Best regards,
>--
>Savas Parastatidis
>http://savas.parastatidis.name
>

_______________________________________________________________
Ian Foster                    www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster
Math & Computer Science Div.  Dept of Computer Science
Argonne National Laboratory   The University of Chicago
Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A.     Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.
Tel: 630 252 4619             Fax: 630 252 1997
         Globus Alliance, www.globus.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20050405/551aeb80/attachment.html