Hi Jun, My slide presentation at CDDLM-WG session attached. ---- Hiro Kishimoto Jun Tatemura wrote:
Dear CDDLM team,
In the session, I have presented - current document status + CDL public comments - interoperability status - interoperability demo (NEC client to access NEC/UFCG/HP portals) followed by discussion for OGSA/EMS - basic POSIX components for EMS lead by Hiro. Please find the slides and note (by keisuke fukui) attached.
Best Regards, Jun Tatemura
------------------------------------------------------------------------
/// CDDLM: /// Jun Tatemura+ about 10 attendees - CDL - Deployment API - Component Model Document Status - Two specs published - One spec in public comment period -- CDDLM CDL (- May 26) CDL Document Clarifications [1] Import namespace [2Typical use case of @cdl:lazy Question - Then what will happenwhen the user assigns a value to a property with @cdl:lazy? - Is this allowed? Answer - You (the user ) can assign a value - The reference to the property is resolved at deployment time, anyway - How this is interpreted by the component depends on the component (application specific) - Clarifying statements will be added to the spec Hiro: These two comments are answered already on the tracker? Jun: The first one is done. Not yet for the second. will do after the session. 9:15 Interoperability: Three Specs to Test CDL Interoperability Definition CDL Test Environment Toolkit for CDL Component Tests Test Document CDL Test Status Hiro: Do you think standard XML normalization doesn't solve the problem? Jun: An Example. When doing reference the same prefix can mean different namespace depending on the Hiro: This is a common problem to XML document. Jun: Yes. That's why this is not mentioned in CDL spec itself. The implementation needs to care to do correct namespace interpretation. Hiro: Is to compare many implementation can generate equivalent document? Jun: Yes. Hiro: Is there any test planned for deployment API? Jun: It addresses to component model, while CDL is more general. The test doesn't cover deployment API usage of CDDLM implementation. CDDLM Interoperability Our Test Approach Deployment API test 9:35 Deployment API Test Demo - NEC (Muse) - UFCG (Muse) - HP (There are less problems between NEC and UFCG because of this) Component Model Test HP Reference Implementation HP Testing Status UFCG Reference Implementation. Testing Issues - Security: need to restrict compoenents to deploy. - Need well known compoenenets & <cdl:import> URLs. - Without standardised failure codes for certain faults (e.g. unresolved reference) failure tests just test for failure Underlying spec issues - WS-A is complex - Faulting: SOAP Faults vs BaseFaults. SOAP 9:45 (So this is the status. Questions?) Hiro: What about the implementation from Stuart. Jun: It will come later. It might present new underlying problems since it is the Windows implementation. Hiro: Understood that CDL test doesn't use real application. Jun: Applications used for to verify the component model don't do real task. Document named "Component Test Model" is explained. (Question about application and component continues.) Keisuke: Is that box in the diagram a compoent resource or XML fragment? Jun: It is a compoenent resource. It can be Java code, but it is implementation dependent.
9:55 // Basic POSIX component for EMS // Hiro Kishimoto The Basic POSIX component is a generic component usable to deploy POSIX applications. Deployment Infrastructure BLAST CDL Document Deploy Component Jay: I don't want the use to specify all parameters when writing scripts to do transfer, copy, set attribute, and so on. Jun: Script needs to be somehow parameterized to use the value from CDL. Basic POISIX component - Identified "gap" between family of CDDLM specs and EMS services - Provide services -- Application binary installation -- File system mount -- Database setup (in case of BLAST) - Provide output (will be incorpoated in JSDL document) -- Application path -- Environment variables CDL document includes - 1. Application binary installation - 2. File system mount Hiro: I think Filesystem mount will be of value for many. Is there any plan to privde it? Jun: Not yet, I think. Basic POSIX template - Companion template to Basic posix component Next steps - Jointly develop BPC and BPT spec -- OGSA EMS & CDDLM-WG - More example than BLAST -- OGSA EMS & JSDL-WG - Put Job Manageer in this deployment picture - Put ACS in this picture - Advanced Common Component Hiro: How the components can be stored in ACS? Keisuke: One of the goal of ACS is to bundle a set of files for a task as a unit. When retrieving contents, one can do that at the granularity of the contents inside an archive. I can imagine components can be archived and later retrieve each. So I think it is possible with the current ACS at this moment. 10:20 End of session