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

[Jon MacLaren]

But surely, if your workflow execution service was doing a good job of 
encapsulation, you would just be asking it to "suspend execution of 
every part of this workflow" - a single message to a single entity.  
The workflow execution service will know where all the work packages 
are (I hope).

Jon.


On Apr 6, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Donal K. Fellows wrote:

> Mark McKeown wrote:
>> Perhaps there are other reasons for using a single message
>> to interact with multiple jobs?
>
> Surely it depends on the complexity of the jobs? I can well imagine
> clients wanting to interact with all atomic jobs within a workflow and
> not knowing the details of what those atoms are. To make this a more
> concrete assertion, saying "suspend every job related to this workflow"
> is clearly of use to higher-level services, and I would not expect the
> owner of a complex workflow (e.g. one that does parameter-space
> exploration) to know the ids of everything they've kicked off. And 
> since
> such things might involve hundreds of thousands of atomic work parcels,
> interacting with each one individually would not be a reasonable
> expansion in the amount of work to be performed, even with low-level
> protocol hacks.
>
> Simplicity and scalability have to be balanced against each other, 
> alas.
>
> Donal.
>