[ogsa-wg] Perhaps useful input to BES discussion

[Donal K. Fellows]

Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
> - We think MJFS corresponds to container instead of Job Manager.
> - MJFS and others cover most of "container" interface but not all.
> For example, BES-WG will define check-pointing interface which
> is not supported by GRAM.
> - GRAM covers "job" interface, which is out of BES-WG's scope.

That's funny, because that does not meet my recollection of the
discussion in the BES f2f. Instead, I believe that we agreed that the
definition of a common base set of activity port types was going to be
probably impossible. There seemed to be substantial agreement that the
definition of job managability interfaces for "POSIX activities" (i.e.
those derived from a JSDL POSIXApplication) was both worthwhile and
in-scope. OK, I may have misinterpreted what was said, but that was
definitely my impression.

I'd also equivocate over checkpointing somewhat, as I got the impression
that that was an example of something that people felt to be part of an
"Advanced Execution Service" (we were seeking to distinguish between
Basic and Advanced at the time).

Donal Fellows.