[ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
Ian Foster
foster at mcs.anl.gov
Thu Mar 3 09:04:16 CST 2005
Tony:
I think your message captures nicely (although perhaps inadvertently!) the
way in which people are talking past each other in this discussion.
I would never say that the "messages to single resources approach" is the
"the foundation for all operations on all services." I understand that some
people in this strange religious debate that we've fallen into have
characterized things that way, but that's far from the truth.
From my perspective, WSRF was motivated by our experiences building
"service oriented infrastructure", and seeing that the same patterns were
occuring repeatedly in different places as we built systems to manage Grid
systems. The codification of those patterns in standard (and
WS-I+-compliant, I like to emphasize) WSDL has allowed us to simplify many
aspects of both service implementation and client tools. Others report the
same positive experiences. The introduction of WS-Transfer, which provides
similar functionality and seems to be intended for similar purposes,
suggests that there is broad recognition of the importance of these
patterns. However, the fact that these patterns are useful in building
certain classes of management applications (a primary focus of OGSA, by the
way) certainly doesn't mean that they are appropriate everywhere.
I'd also like to suggest that when considering the assertion that "sending
messages to single resources makes systems fragile", it is useful to
recognize that the messages sent over the wire when using an EPR to a
WS-Resource (the WSRF approach) vs. an EPR plus a context id (e.g., as in
the eCommerce systems that are often mentioned) are close to identical. In
fact, the only difference is really just the location of the "context id":
in the EPR vs. in the body of the message! I don't see how the choice of
one placement vs. the other can render a service "robust and scalable" vs.
"fragile and nonscalable"--especially as the service itself can be
implemented in an essentially identical manner in the two cases.
My preceding paragraph suggest that there are opportunities for common
ground, and I suspect that is the case. However, to find that common ground
we need to identify clearly just what it is we are trying to do and then
address different issues separately. I believe that there are far too many
different issues being mixed together at present for useful progress to
occur. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to proceed to separate out the
different issues.
Ian.
At 11:37 AM 3/3/2005 +0000, Tony Hey wrote:
>The point is not about how well the WS-RF and WS-Transfer stacks compare
>but rather whether it is always appropriate to use the "messages are
>directed at single resources" approach? Many people, including people
>whose technical judgement I respect such as Tony Storey, Ian Foster,
>Dave Snelling and others, apparently believe that the answer to this
>question is "everywhere: it is the foundation for all operations on all
>services". It is therefore not surprising that this group do not see the
>need to worry about the question "is it a good idea to build
>architecture around the idea of sending messages to single resources?"
_______________________________________________________________
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/20050303/48ebfe1d/attachment.html
More information about the ogsa-wg
mailing list