[SAGA-RG] notes from the OGF28 session on 15/03, 16:00-17:30

[Andre Merzky]

Hi again,

attached is another revision of the SAGA Core API Experience
document, which contains changes as discussed at OGF28.  I hope the
changes reflect the discussion points.

The complex stack of SAGA implementations, their interdependencies,
the fact that interop is weakly defined for APIs, and the fact that
GFD.90 specifies the SAGA API in a language independent way, al
those things make it somewhat difficult to come up with a concise
definition of the goals for our interop document.  While there is
little doubt in the group that SAGA is implementablt, we should
strive to make that point convincing in the document.

So I'd like to invite you all to review the document in that
respect, and help to improve those points if possible.

In particular, I added some short description of the language
bindings (not implementations) -- it would be great if Hartmut,
Ceriel and Mathijs could shortly review those sections, and
fix/expand where appropriate.


Quoting [Thilo Kielmann] (Mar 15 2010):
>
> 2. the SAGA Core experience document
>
> Andre was walking the group through the upcoming experience document.
> The discussion lead to the following action items:
>
>
> clarify the notions of interoperable vs. compliant
> what do we need/want to show exactly?

done


> remove section 2, there seems no real value here

done


> section 3: was debated as well
> solution: merge its content into the current section 4

done


> make more concise points about what we want to test, exactly

attempted ;-)


Quoting [Thilo Kielmann] (Mar 16 2010):
>
> 1. presentation by Go Iwai about the SAGA implementations done by
> the Japanese NAREGI project.  They identified several (fortunately
> small) issues with the spec.
> 
> It was decided to incorporate their findings in the errata
> document and to close the list of errata then.  (We are not aware
> of another mature implementation effort from which we have not
> received errata feedback yet.)

done



So, a couple of additional errata from the Naregi group have been
applied to the Core API - hopefully the last ones.  However, there
remains one item unresolved:

appearently we never considered to add a flush() method to the
saga::file instance.  As is, our API implies that all writes are
immediately flushed.  While that is certainly valid, the question
remains if we should consider an explicit flush() method, which
would, amongst others, allow implementations to perform client side
caching of write operations.  Iff that is considered useful, one
could further discuss if that should be introduced on namespace
level, so that other namespace derived packages (replica, advert,
etc) can also benefit from flush().  FWIW, a close() should always
imply a flush() IMHO.

So, please voice your opinion!

Best, Andre.

--
Nothing is ever easy.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: saga_core_experience.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 275756 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/saga-rg/attachments/20100404/f8577652/attachment-0001.pdf