---------------------------------------------------------------- CDDLM #1 Reference implementations, note taker Stuart Schaefer Reference Implementations - How do we go about it? Presentations from HP Labs, NEC, HP-Brazil and Softricity HP Labs - Steve Loughran - Parser mostly complete - cdl:extends only one level deep - Converts CDL to graph, then downconverts to SmartFrog - WSRF/WSDM o Specifications in flux o Postponed touching until the end - hopefully things will stabilize - Created many test cases - these test cases need validation NEC - Jun Tatemura - Not finished with client - Not finished with WSDM - Need to implement Component Model - Need to do conformance testing for CDL Parser - Want to provide open source implementation plus front-end application for Business Grid HP-Brazil - Building a full reference implementation - A joint effort between HP, Intel, and University of Brazil Softricity - Will have complete implementation, non-conformant - Complete by end of August - Will work on interop after September Schedule for reference implementations - Jun will compile conformance test for CDL v0.1 for mid-August ACS Integration / Compatibility not likely due to scheduling ---------------------------------------------- CDDLM #2, 6/29, 2-3:30pm, Windsor, Interop interop demo: opinions? what kind of applications should be demoed? interop level of CDL? CDDLM framework? interop of CDL parsers - is that a part of conformance? - if conformant, they should interoperate - do we need to demonstrate as interop? CDL is a unit test, deployment API is a system test - component model is a functional test = walkthrough of component model functionalities only two touch points we can verify - client perspective - component can be handled in different implementations invalid CDL case can be also tested within Deployment API as fault in initialize() support environment interoperability - fault if not deployable test 1: one single component on one single machine a component has one query-able property - walk through lifecycle state transition + query properties test 2: multiple component - lazy reference resolution - test semantics (e.g. ordering of deployed components) test 3: cascaded deployment? --> not included what is not covered: deployment of a system with multiple components across multiple implementations (i.e., sharing one deployment graph on multiple platforms) what is cascaded deployment? - a deployed component is also a client to another system --> not be included assumption: same client deploys to different CDDLM implementations assumption: interop includes WSRF/WSDM interoperability assumption: do a number of conformance test that - succeed (with predictable outcome) - fail capture outcome in a log and compare logs for different reference implementations? --> no --> deploy same executables witch are self-checking NUnit/JUnit on sourceforge, aim is to automate interop testing define test components test case document - three parts individual test drafts by the mid-august the test case document aims for GGF15 ---------------------------------------- Notes from CDDLM #4 session, demos Note taker Dejan Milojicic. Jun presents the CDL demo, which also includes the component model (initialization, starting, terminating, and destroying) the application (JBOSS and MySQL). At the moment, there is a separate component model, but the plan is to eventually switch to Stuart's component model. However, Jun used pieces of Steve's deployment APIs. Tom asked to be walked though some of the CDLs. Dejan asked if Jun believes that the version with component model would be easier to develop. This is TBD. Steve presented CDL parser with a number of Junit tests. He then did a demo of starting a Web server. Steve has then gone over the code. He did not implement either component model or deployment APIs, but rather did a hack to interface to SmartFrog which deployed the Web server. This was possible to do only because of the same semantics between CDL and SmartFrog. Conclusions about the conversions between the two languages: there is a possibility to do a small amounts of compatibility ------------------------------------------ CDDLM Session with WSDM was walk over the deployment APIs and then component model ------------------------------------------ CDDLM session with other WG has not happened in a coherent fashion since a couple of chairs dropped by, we instead used that time to resync on our commitments. We never held the last session on the specs because there was no need for it. Thanks, Dejan.