April 2005 - cddlm-wg - lists.ogf.org

Component Model Update
by Stuart Schaefer 04 May '05

04 May '05

Here is the long overdue Component Model Draft. I have updated most of the document, completely reorganizing the content. I have also fixed numerous errors and added lots of content to more deeply explain the concepts. I would appreciate everyone's time in reviewing the document for concepts and completeness of the idea. I will worry about typos later. I have a few TODOs in the document that will be cleaned up early next week. I am also attaching an updated schema for those interested. All of this will be checked into SourceForge today. Cheers, Stuart

3 2

GGF 13 presentation on the component model
by Stuart Schaefer 29 Apr '05

29 Apr '05

Attached is the presentation given at GGF13. It is also in Groove. Stuart

1 0

Reply to Steve's comments on the Component Model
by Stuart Schaefer 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

Steve, Here are some thoughts on your comments on the Component Model. 1) Each component object is a new instantiation of a component. Are you asking whether the component model is smart enough to recognize that another instance already exists, and not create a new instance? That seems to me to be a higher level primitive than the component model, but could be handled if necessary. 2) I will try to add language to define that we are deploying anything. The point of the services assumption is that this is Grid Forum, and we are trying to deploy grid services somewhere. 3) Resource responsible vs. hosting. I received feedback on that before. WS-RF and WSDM define logical vs. physical resource in such a way that does not require hosting. 4) All internal use of documents is supposed to be CDL. it is specified that way in the Foundation document and in the CDL language document. There is a uniform resolution process. There is also a means to pass the CDL document to a component. In that way, components don't have to be written to read multiple languages. They are parsed by front-end parsers. 5) The lifecycle diagram does not match yours. You do allow termination from initialized. SmartFrog does not. My presumption has been that you can accept the terminate, and march the commponents through their lifecycle. 6) If the code base of an object is a remote URL, does the component have to load the object itself? Who is going to do the fetch or upload operation? 7) Synchronous vs. asynchronous state transition operations. There will be lots of extra code and failure handling for asynchronous, event driven state transitions. I am fearful of either approach. Synchronous is easier to define :) I will look at the Deployment API and see how it is at odds. 8) I am very confused by your "very, very, very slow" comment. It seems you are agreeing with me, and showing how you handle this case with SmartFrog. is that right? 9) Why shouldn't external components declare dependencies on children of delegates? A delegate is defined to manage the lifecycle of a child component. Thus, a delegate is free to manage that lifecycle in any way it sees fit. If you declare a dependency on the child component, the delegate is no longer free. It must be careful not to violate that dependency. I don't think you can have it both ways. 10) Read-on-run vs. read-on-initialized. My intention with the statement was to remind implementers that resolution is not instantaneous. Thus, if you wait until you need it, your deployment operation may slow down. However, I see your point as well. I will change the language, but add the reminder.

1 0

Notes from the meeting this morning (4/27/2005)
by Milojicic, Dejan S 27 Apr '05

27 Apr '05

Hi, Here is a quick summary of the meeting this morning. Only Stuart and myself attended, but it was quite productive. 1. There will be a mandatory meeting next week. Can we please have all members of the team provide detailed feedback to Stuart on this spec. In the meanwhile (by next Monday), Stuart will provide additional version of the spec, BUT YOU SHOULD NOT WAIT FOR THIS ONE, the changes will be minimal and he does not depend on the feedback for these changes. Please comment on the previous version of the spec. 2. In the spirit of coming up with the reference implementations, we need to discuss what pieces of the work proposed in the original Foundation spec are not covered by existing specs. Engine interfaces come to mind. At the next meeting, I would like to revisit the commitments on who does what wrt reference implementations for the Chicago GGF. If we have additional resource, what would be most critical for the team to address: e.g. an independent reference implementation of an engine or a way to verify interoperability between existing (and which) reference implementations, etc. 3. Yesterday, Dejan presented the GGF CDDLM WG at the DMTF Utility WG. This informal presentation raised some interest, in particular the opportunities for declaratively expressing dependencies among deployment modules and its relationship to models. We agreed to explore possibility for the two groups meeting at Chicago. Once I have the most recent set of specs, I will pass them to the Utility WG (this means the newest component model and deployment APIs specs). Thanks, Dejan.

1 0

my comments on the component model
by Steve Loughran 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

here you go, comments in red. -steve

1 0

RE: [cddlm] GGF presentations
by Milojicic, Dejan S 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Steve, The ntoes have been posted to the CDDLM mailing list and they are available at http://www-unix.gridforum.org/mail_archive/cddlm-wg/2005/04/msg00000.htm l. We did not have emphasis on presentation as much as on interaction during GGF, however if Stuart and Jun send to me the presentations, I'd be glad to put them up on the Web. Thanks, Dejan. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] > On Behalf Of Steve Loughran > Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 7:03 AM > To: 'cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org' > Subject: [cddlm] GGF presentations > > > Incidentally, can we have a GGF13 meeting materials and > minutes category up on the web site, > http://forge.gridforum.org/projects/cddlm-wg , with all the > presentations from GGF13. I havent seen either the > presentations or any notes yet. > > >

3 2

FW: [sched-chairs] NOTES: GGF SRM Area - Chairs Telecon Notes, 26 Apr 2005
by Milojicic, Dejan S 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

-----Original Message----- From: owner-sched-chairs(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-sched-chairs@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Bill Nitzberg Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:19 AM To: sched-chairs(a)ggf.org Subject: [sched-chairs] NOTES: GGF SRM Area - Chairs Telecon Notes, 26 Apr 2005 GGF Sched Area - Chairs Telecon Notes, 26 Apr 2005 ================================================== Attendees (with '*'s): ---------------------- *Bill Nitzberg, Area Director *Stephen Pickles, Area Director Keisuke Fukui, ACS-WG Thomas Studwell, ACS-WG Peter Ziu, ACS-WG *Hrabri Rajic, DRMAA-WG Andreas Haas, DRMAA-WG Wolfgang Ziegler, GRAAP-WG Jim Pruyne, GRAAP-WG Volker Sander, GRAAP-WG Jon MacLaren, GESA-WG Steven Newhouse, GESA-WG Steven Newhouse, RUS-WG Bill Horn, RUS-WG Rebekah Metz, UR-WG Stephen McGough, JSDL-WG *Ali Anjomshoaa, JSDL-WG Darren Pulsipher, JSDL-WG *Dejan Milojicic, CDDLM-WG Takashi Kojo, CDDLM-WG *Ramin Yahyapour, GSA-RG *Uwe Schwiegelshohn, GSA-RG Jarek Nabrzyski, GSA-RG Ewa Deelman, WFM-RG Jim Blythe, WFM-RG Miron Livny, WRM-RG ('+' == could not attend, but emailed status report) NB: --- OGSA-BES (BOF): For everyone's information the OGSA-BES group is having meetings on Thursday Mornings at 7a Pacific. To join the email list send mail to majordomo(a)ggf.org: subscribe ogsa-bes-bof PLEASE nominate candidates for GFSG to: nomcom(a)ggf.org GGF14: 26-29 Jun 2005, Chicago GGF15: 3-6 Oct 2005, Boston Status ------ ACS-WG -- PLEASE SEND STATUS TO sched-chairs(a)ggf.org CDDLM-WG -- Component Model Spec updated: expect this version to go to last call. Only remaining spec is Deployment APIs (hopefully by next GGF) DRMAA-WG -- Expect to resubmit document(s) around GGF14. GESA-WG -- (hibernating...) GRAAP-WG -- PLEASE SEND STATUS TO sched-chairs(a)ggf.org GSA-RG -- We are revising the use-case doc for a submission to the editor before GGF14. Meanwhile, Ramin Yahyapour and Philip Wieder are in discussion with the proposed OGSA-RSS. A telecon is scheduled for Thursday by OGSA-WG at which the collaboration of OGSA-RSS, GSA-RG and OGSA-WG is discussed. JSDL-WG -- Working hard on getting v1 out (about 20 issues left); hope that it will go to last call in the next couple of weeks. Good interaction with OGSA & OGSA-BES. Also made a presentation to DMTF and CIM folks. RUS-WG -- PLEASE SEND STATUS TO sched-chairs(a)ggf.org UR-WG -- PLEASE SEND STATUS TO sched-chairs(a)ggf.org WFM-RG -- PLEASE SEND STATUS TO sched-chairs(a)ggf.org Upcoming Telecons ----------------- Every other Tuesday (skipping holiday weeks) 8a US Pacific (see www.worldtime.com to convert) Usually very short (less than 15 minutes long) Dial-in: 1-800-387-6159 & 1-303-248-0173 Conference ID: 7144404 Upcoming Telecons / or status reports due before: 10 May 2005 24 May 2005 7 Jun 2005 21 Jun 2005 If you can't make a telecon, please send us a note. If no chairs from your group will make a telecon, please also send a status update to everyone on the list (sched-chairs(a)gridforum.org) As always, please keep things moving forward --- if you need help setting up a separate mailing list or teleconference calls for your group, etc., don't hesitate to ask us. Thanks all! - Bill & Stephen GGF SRM Area Directors

1 0

GGF presentations
by Steve Loughran 26 Apr '05

26 Apr '05

Incidentally, can we have a GGF13 meeting materials and minutes category up on the web site, http://forge.gridforum.org/projects/cddlm-wg , with all the presentations from GGF13. I havent seen either the presentations or any notes yet.

1 0

RE: [cddlm] Component Model Update
by Milojicic, Dejan S 25 Apr '05

25 Apr '05

HI Stuart, Very much appreciated. I was waiting until we have the component model in place before having the next CDDLM meeting. So, the next meeting will be the following Wednesday 4/27, at 6am PST and other corresponding local times (9am EST, 2pm UK, not sure about JST, I think it is 17h ahead). For the meeting, please read the component model spec and be ready to provide the feedback. I will solicit separate feedback from outside parties so that we can proceed in parallel. It is of utmost importance that you do prepare feedback to Stuart. Phone: +1 866-639-4732 (toll free while in US) +1 574-948-0379 (toll & international) Code: 2362906 (followed by a '#' sign) On agenda we have one most important topic: closing on the component model spec. Best regards, Dejan. ________________________________ From: owner-cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org [mailto:owner-cddlm-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Stuart Schaefer Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 4:08 AM To: cddlm-wg(a)ggf.org Subject: [cddlm] Component Model Update Here is the long overdue Component Model Draft. I have updated most of the document, completely reorganizing the content. I have also fixed numerous errors and added lots of content to more deeply explain the concepts. I would appreciate everyone's time in reviewing the document for concepts and completeness of the idea. I will worry about typos later. I have a few TODOs in the document that will be cleaned up early next week. I am also attaching an updated schema for those interested. All of this will be checked into SourceForge today. Cheers, Stuart

2 1

Notes from the GGF13
by Milojicic, Dejan S 06 Apr '05

06 Apr '05

Hi, Please find attached notes from all four meetings held at GGF13. I have started the process of individually talking to each owner of the remaining specs. Plan is to hold the meeting next week at 6am PST. Thanks, Dejan. Notes from the first CDDLM meeting (component model), taken by Kojo ---------------------------------- CDDLM-WG Session 1: Component Model 3pm - 4:30pm, March 14, 2005 at GGF13, Seoul Chair: Dejan Milojicic, Present: Stuart Schaefer, Note take: Takashi Kojo Stuart described Component Model with ppt slides. Following is Q&A during the presentation. Q: Regarding with aggregating component status, what does "coordinated" means, if the status synchronization is not "MUST". A: We can still define clearly "coordinated" status. Q: Regarding with flow control, would it be good to have Reverse-Sequence? A: Reverse-Sequence is very difficult to implement, when you think about recursive tree traverse. Q: Why do you call it "Flow" instead of "Concurrent"? A: The term is from BPEL. Q: Is "Switch" declarative? A: Yes, I think so. Q: What is your implementation experience? A: The hardest part is to deal with multiple versions of on going standards. WSDM refers WS-RF which goes down to 13 standard components. Q: What is the scale of test implementation? A: SmartFrog has large scale application deployment. It is used for large scale network control systems, for example, which has more than thousand nodes. Q: Why don't we just use WSBPEL? A: WSBPEL is universal, but there is much simpler declarative way to define most of typical deployment. Q: When would the reference implementation? A: Next GGF. Q: When will you complete Spec? A: Next week(?) Q: Have you discuss on message traffic of error event? A: Yes, somewhat. We are trying to look at that. Q: Which WS-RF do you use? A: For reference implementation at next GGF, it will be realistic to use own implementation of WS-RF. CDDLM spec doesn't require full spec of WS-RF. Notes from the second CDDLM meeting (Deployment APIs), taken by Dejan Milojicic ----------------------------------- Dejan: Why are we required to invoke "run" on the system. Stuart: it may be possible to come up with a thin client at the portal who could replace naïve users and invoke sequences of these calls. Can we have examples of applications? Stuart, yes, we can create one, for the time being, there is everything on the GridForge, hopefully we'll be able to demonstrate implementations in June in Chicago. Dejan: there is a different state diagram for system and for component model. Stuart, yes, this is required because of the WSRF and not exposing faults to outside world. Dejan: Can you please introduce a few sentences describing your reasoning why there is a difference. Audience: why is thee state diagram pessimistic. Stuart because of WSRF, resource needs to have a lifetime, it would have to have the same URL. Stuart: WS component or endpoint reference should be instead of xsd:any for system epr resolveRequest.sic services, Dejan: there will be testing suites for WSDM, do you plan on using it. Stuart: Yes. Stuart, we intentionally minimized A long discussion on basic services v. component model. A quick summary is that because we are lacking basic services, we again needed to put a lot of intelligence into component models. This way, it may not work quite well in cases when the component models are naïve. Discussion on the ease of use, automation Audience: it would be useful to have examples of very centralized/hierarchical communication, then completely distributed, and something in between. Stuart: the system already supports it. Dejan: maybe we can introduce it in the some subsequent documents that will accompany the reference implementations. Maybe tutorial (agreement by audience and Stuart). Fukui Keisuke: I expected some resource management to interact with CDDLM. Stuart: showed the Foundation document, figure 7. Fukui Keisuke and Stuart started discussions on the interactions between ACS and CDDLM. Notes from the third CDDLM meeting (XML-based language), taken by Stuart Schaefer ---------------------------------- CDDLM Configuration Language Description - GGF 13 CDL Introduction CDL FAQ - Inheritance (prototype references) - Value references - Data types Question (Dejan) : What about CDL across multiple deployment engines? Question : What is the difference between lazy property and lazy reference? Question (Dejan) : Can SmartFrog be translated into CDL? Question (Dejan) : Can you envision GUIs for writing CDL? Question (Dejan) : Will we provide verification tools? Question : How difficult is it to implement this? Notes from the fourth CDDLM meeting, taken by Jun Tatemura ----------------------------------- comments from Keisuke Fukui (ACS Chair) - people from Naregi will a driving force - ACS and CDDLM have tight relationship -- especially: addfile operation, deployment API Kojo - 4 sessions are successful. I think the component model and cdl have matured. Jun - we will be able to show a demo by Jun to demonstrate reference implementation although it may not be perfect conformance. - example scenario should be discussed. Stuart - lots of work should be coordinated towards interoperability. (e.g., test case) - planning on action items in the next telecon Dejan - would Naregi team give example scenario, code, etc? -- Naregi will explore possibility. comment from Dejan - I am pleased of our progress. ----- Relationship with other groups - JSDL, IUDD, ACS, OGSA OGSA (Kojo) they are discussing Execution Management profile (Dejan) suggests that we can send our documents to them (Dejan) following every changes in OGSA is tough. We could wait until documents come out. Action item: Dejan talks to andrew/hiro today. to have a special session with CDDLM+OGSA IUDD (Dejan) there is a lot of value (politically). (technically) taking pieces of CDDLM to OASIS in the future.. (Stuart) it will take time -- companies with different priority/motivation (Keisuke) the current document is too huge and detail. their scope does not consider Grid. Action: do our business as usual. ----- Next Step. Demo scenarios, etc. - Action: Dejan, Jun, Kojo + Keisuke (ACS) will review Component Model document - Deployment API - reference implementation. NEC will provide a reference implementation. - Jun will be responsible of the reference implementation. Stuart will have another language parser. Action: to create a list of conformance requirements (features) and draw a line where we should achieve by June. test cases will be created based on the list (for each specs) - Scenario - simple application / complex application - simple service / complex service --- next telecon 2 weeks from now

1 0