[ogsa-wg] RE: [ogsa-bes-wg] Create a revised BES spec draft that reflects the decisions of the July F2F mtg
Maguire_Tom at emc.com
Maguire_Tom at emc.com
Mon Aug 21 14:30:16 CDT 2006
Apologies for the cross post but some of this discussion is relevant to the
OGSA-WG
I would agree that WS-BaseFaults are not required for BES. In
WS-ResourceProperties the use of BaseFaults is optional (SHOULD). The OGSA
Basic Profile for WSRF has mandatory (MUST) use of BaseFaults for
WS-Resources.
7.1.1 BaseFault Structure
R0711 A MESSAGE for a fault from a WS-Resource MUST conform to the structure
specified in Web Services Base Faults Section 2, "Base Fault Type."
As I re-read this section it is not nearly clear enough about the scope of
'WS-Resource'ness. I could interpret this requirement several ways:
* ALL faults from a WS-Resource MUST be extensions of BaseFaults
* ALL faults from a WS-Resource based portType MUST be extensions of
BaseFaults
* ALL faults from a WS-Resource base portType that match the semantics
of existing BaseFaults MUST use the BaseFault extension type that is defined
for that portType (basically what this does is turn the SHOULD in WSRF specs
for faults into MUSTs)
Clearly, point 1 is a non-starter; no implementation will be able to
guarantee that all faults are extension of BaseFaults. Point 2 is also
extremely difficult as there are significant numbers of interceptors between
the consumer and the provider implementation all of which are likely to not
fault with WS-BaseFaults. Which leads us to point 3, I think this is the
only reasonable interpretation of the requirement; that faults that are
defined in WSRF specs MUST be used (as opposed to the SHOULD requirement in
WSRF).
Perhaps we should clarify this requirement in the Basic Profile.
w.r.t the subject at hand I think that any consumer will need to deal both
SOAP faults and BaseFaults and as such I don't see much of a need to fuss
about the fault definitions in BES. I do however, agree with Ian that there
is value in having a common base type for faults.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Tom Maguire
+1(845) 729-4806
_____
From: owner-ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org] On Behalf
Of Ian Foster
Sent: Friday, August 18, 2006 11:27 AM
To: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
Subject: RE: [ogsa-bes-wg] Create a revised BES spec draft that reflects the
decisions of the July F2F mtg
Marvin:
David's proposal, which is realized in the current draft, is that we define
BES to just have "GetStatus" and "GetProperties" operations (as well as
CreateActivity etc.). We can then compose WS-Transfer operations or WSRF
operations, if desired, in a particular BES implementation.
This seems to me to be a really nice solution to the "problem" that we
thought we had, in that it avoids the need for multiple renderings.
The one tricky issue is the rendering of faults. In the current BES
document, we use WS-BaseFaults. You report that the Microsoft WS team has
problems with that. I don't think we should let this be a show stopper, as I
don't think it is essential that we use WS-BaseFaults in BES. At the same
time, WS-BaseFaults was introduced for a reason. Thus I'd like to propose
that we proceed as follows:
a) We set up a phone call with the Microsoft WS team and the WS-BaseFaults
guys to talk this over, in case it turns out that we can in fact all agree
that WS-BaseFaults is useful.
b) In the (likely) case that the Microsoft WS team still doesn't want to see
WS-BaseFaults included, we check with the BES team that it is ok to use a
different fault model for the BES core vs. the specs that might be composed
with the BES core, such as WSRF.
Thoughts?
Ian.
At 05:17 PM 8/16/2006 -0700, Marvin Theimer wrote:
Hi;
Another comment/question on Dave Snellings proposal: I dont really
understand how it avoids distinct renderings since it is still the case that
we have at least 3 different WSDLs, one per rendering option:
* WSRF version that employs WS-ResourceProperties, etc.
* WS-Transfer version that employs WS-Transfer, etc.
* Resource model-free version that employs an explicit QueryStatus
operation (and potentially additional QueryFoo operations).
It is certainly the case that there is a coreset of operations that is
common to all 3 interface choices and we should certainly write the spec
that way. But dont we still end up with 3 different rendering versions?
Marvin.
_____
From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster at mcs.anl.gov]
Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 2:20 PM
To: Marvin Theimer; ogsa-bes-wg at ggf.org
Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Create a revised BES spec draft that reflects the
decisions of the July F2F mtg
Marvin:
I've claimed the pen on the document, but have been finding it hard to find
time to make a lot of progress. I will try to do some work on it tomorrow
morning.
That said, I want to mention an important development that Dave Snelling may
or may not have mentioned on calls. Dave argues that we can avoid the need
for distinct renderings by defining our interfaces carefully. The basic
idea, as I understand it, is that:
a) the "core interface" has the basic operations for creating jobs,
modifying their status, etc., and an operation for grabbing all of the
factory state;
b) then, if desired, a WSRF service (for example) can also implement the
WS-ResourceProperties, WS-ResourceLifetime, WS-BaseNotification, operations;
c) while a WS-Resource service would implement the WS-Resource equivalents
of those.
So we exploit the power of interface composition to avoid the need for
separate bindings.
The only problematic issue, as I understand it, is that of faults. The
question is how we render faults. The WSRF binding must (by the spec) use
WS-BaseFaults. If we can all agree to use that, then we are ok. If not, then
we still have problems.
Ian.
At 01:29 PM 8/4/2006 -0700, Marvin Theimer wrote:
x-ms-exchange-organization-recipient-p2-type: To
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Hi;
The HPC Profile (HPCP) work depends critically on BES. The recent
face-to-face meeting at Argonne made substantial progress in terms of
reshaping the proposed BES specification in a way that would make it
suitable for supporting the HPCP on top of it. Are there plans to generate
a new revision of the BES specification draft in the near future? As soon
as the revised version comes into existence we'll be able to seriously start
doing the actual HPCP work (which will take place on the hpcp-ogsa-wg
mailing list and in weekly telecom calls that will be starting shortly).
Since the HPCP WG is effectively gated on this revised spec, having a draft
of a revised spec sometime in the next week or so would be really helpful.
I would be willing to help rewrite the BES spec if that would be useful to
the BES WG.
Marvin.
_______________________________________________________________
Ian Foster, Director, Computation Institute
Argonne National Laboratory & University of Chicago
Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439
Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637
Tel: +1 630 252 4619. Web: www.ci.uchicago.edu
<http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/> .
Globus Alliance: www.globus.org <http://www.globus.org/> .
_______________________________________________________________
Ian Foster -- Weblog: http://ianfoster.typepad.com
<http://ianfoster.typepad.com/>
Computation Institute: www.ci.uchicago.edu <http://www.ci.uchicago.edu/> &
www.ci.anl.gov <http://www.ci.anl.gov/>
Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439
Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637
Tel: +1 630 252 4619 --- Globus Alliance: www.globus.org
<http://www.globus.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20060821/d89fe31d/attachment.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3654 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/ogsa-wg/attachments/20060821/d89fe31d/attachment.bin
More information about the ogsa-wg
mailing list