The GLUE WG has a 90 minute session starting at 15:30 on Thursday 18th March. In order to prepare for this session we will need to know who will from this group will be attending and what presentations will be given. I will be attending and propose to give three short presentations. 1) A quick overview of Glue 2.0 2) The LDAP rendering 3) The status and plans for roll out within EGEE/WLCG If anyone would like to give an additional presentation, can suggest a presentation that we should include or would like to propose a discussion topic, please let me know. Thanks, Laurence
hi Laurence, others, On 2010-02-23 14:30, Laurence Field wrote:
The GLUE WG has a 90 minute session starting at 15:30 on Thursday 18th March. In order to prepare for this session we will need to know who will from this group will be attending and what presentations will be given.
I will be attending and propose to give three short presentations.
1) A quick overview of Glue 2.0 2) The LDAP rendering 3) The status and plans for roll out within EGEE/WLCG
If anyone would like to give an additional presentation, can suggest a presentation that we should include or would like to propose a discussion topic, please let me know.
I'll be also present and propose two discussion topics and one presentation: for discussion: 1) planning for GLUE 2 errata 2) XML rendering status and plans the presentation: XML rendering as implemented in Nordugrid/ARC cheers, Balazs
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Konya said: 1) planning for GLUE 2 errata
Can you expand on that a bit - are you talking about technical errors, or things which would need a schema revision? Stephen PS I don't think I'll be there. -- Scanned by iCritical.
hi Stephen, On 2010-02-23 16:53, stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Konya said: 1) planning for GLUE 2 errata
Can you expand on that a bit - are you talking about technical errors, or things which would need a schema revision?
I thought of discussing all kind of issues that came up since the release of the GFD.147 For example, there were some errors discovered during the rendering attempts, see the Errata and Possible Errata wiki pages: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE20E... http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE20P... I'd like to discuss, in general, if there is need for an errata and if yes in which form. bye, Balazs ps: sorry for the slow response
Balazs Konya [mailto:balazs.konya@hep.lu.se] said:
I'd like to discuss, in general, if there is need for an errata and if yes in which form.
OK. I think the things we found so far are just technical errors (mostly in the multiplicities), so we should be able to agree them and record the changes without much need for discussion, we just have to make sure that all the implementations keep in step. Probably we will find some more as we implement things - although I now have a provider for Service, Endpoint and AccessPolicy and I haven't noticed anything more for them. There have also beem some things specific to the LDAP schema, e.g. naming of foreign key attributes and typing of strings (ASCII -> UTF-8). In terms of a future schema revision I don't think we have anything yet, and the fact that we can add OtherInfo and Extensions will make it less critical. My guess for the areas where we may have most need for a revision would be support for virtual machines and MPI/parallel jobs, but for that we would need input from the experts. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
Service, Endpoint and AccessPolicy and I haven't noticed anything more for them.
Actually I just noticed one thing for Service which is slightly ambiguous. We have: QualityLevel QualityLevel_t 1 The maturity of the Service in terms of the quality of the underlying software components; the value corresponds to the highest QualityLevel among the available Endpoints. However you can potentially have a Service with no Endpoints - presumably you could still define its QualityLevel, but formally that description wouldn't apply. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
Quoting [stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk] (Mar 10 2010):
Service, Endpoint and AccessPolicy and I haven't noticed anything more for them.
Actually I just noticed one thing for Service which is slightly ambiguous. We have:
QualityLevel QualityLevel_t 1 The maturity of the Service in terms of the quality of the underlying software components; the value corresponds to the highest QualityLevel among the available Endpoints.
However you can potentially have a Service with no Endpoints - presumably you could still define its QualityLevel, but formally that description wouldn't apply.
Sorry if I jump into the discussion sideways - I am not really part of the glue group, just lurking here. Anyway: yes, you certainly can have services w/o endpoints, or at least which have no need to expose an endpoint. For example, we have a garbage collection service which at specific intervals scans our data bases and purges expired entries. That service is never contacted from client side, and nobody really cares where it runs (apart from the deployment point of view of course). And yes, that service could very well specify quality levels, such as run frequency. Not sure if that is relevant to the discussion, just wanted to throw that in ;-) Best, Andre. -- Nothing is ever easy.
Hi Andre, One of the main purposes of GLUE is to advertise information to clients. It is not aiming to model the internal workings of a services and only information that a client needs should be exposed. A client would not care about the garbage collection service so it would not be published. A client may care about a database service and the quality level would be a property of that service. The fact that the quality level was implemented by a hidden service is irrelevant for the client. Laurence Andre Merzky wrote:
Quoting [stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk] (Mar 10 2010):
Service, Endpoint and AccessPolicy and I haven't noticed anything more for them.
Actually I just noticed one thing for Service which is slightly ambiguous. We have:
QualityLevel QualityLevel_t 1 The maturity of the Service in terms of the quality of the underlying software components; the value corresponds to the highest QualityLevel among the available Endpoints.
However you can potentially have a Service with no Endpoints - presumably you could still define its QualityLevel, but formally that description wouldn't apply.
Sorry if I jump into the discussion sideways - I am not really part of the glue group, just lurking here.
Anyway: yes, you certainly can have services w/o endpoints, or at least which have no need to expose an endpoint. For example, we have a garbage collection service which at specific intervals scans our data bases and purges expired entries. That service is never contacted from client side, and nobody really cares where it runs (apart from the deployment point of view of course).
And yes, that service could very well specify quality levels, such as run frequency.
Not sure if that is relevant to the discussion, just wanted to throw that in ;-)
Best, Andre.
I agree - and this implies that a Service must have at least one endpoint otherwise it is useless. Steve On 10 March 2010 21:18, Laurence Field <Laurence.Field@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi Andre,
One of the main purposes of GLUE is to advertise information to clients. It is not aiming to model the internal workings of a services and only information that a client needs should be exposed. A client would not care about the garbage collection service so it would not be published. A client may care about a database service and the quality level would be a property of that service. The fact that the quality level was implemented by a hidden service is irrelevant for the client.
Laurence
Andre Merzky wrote:
Quoting [stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk] (Mar 10 2010):
Service, Endpoint and AccessPolicy and I haven't noticed anything more for them.
Actually I just noticed one thing for Service which is slightly ambiguous. We have:
QualityLevel QualityLevel_t 1 The maturity of the Service in terms of the quality of the underlying software components; the value corresponds to the highest QualityLevel among the available Endpoints.
However you can potentially have a Service with no Endpoints - presumably you could still define its QualityLevel, but formally that description wouldn't apply.
Sorry if I jump into the discussion sideways - I am not really part of the glue group, just lurking here.
Anyway: yes, you certainly can have services w/o endpoints, or at least which have no need to expose an endpoint. For example, we have a garbage collection service which at specific intervals scans our data bases and purges expired entries. That service is never contacted from client side, and nobody really cares where it runs (apart from the deployment point of view of course).
And yes, that service could very well specify quality levels, such as run frequency.
Not sure if that is relevant to the discussion, just wanted to throw that in ;-)
Best, Andre.
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
Right - if begin acessible by clients is essential, than an endpoint is essential, too, obviously. Thanks, Andre. Quoting [Steve Fisher] (Mar 11 2010):
I agree - and this implies that a Service must have at least one endpoint otherwise it is useless.
Steve
On 10 March 2010 21:18, Laurence Field <[1]Laurence.Field@cern.ch> wrote:
Hi Andre, One of the main purposes of GLUE is to advertise information to clients. It is not aiming to model the internal workings of a services and only information that a client needs should be exposed. A client would not care about the garbage collection service so it would not be published. A client may care about a database service and the quality level would be a property of that service. The fact that the quality level was implemented by a hidden service is irrelevant for the client. Laurence
Quoting [[2]stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk] (Mar 10 2010):
Service, Endpoint and AccessPolicy and I haven't noticed anything more for them.
Actually I just noticed one thing for Service which is slightly ambiguous. We have:
QualityLevel QualityLevel_t 1 The maturity of the Service in terms of the quality of the underlying software components; the value corresponds to the highest QualityLevel among the available Endpoints.
However you can potentially have a Service with no Endpoints - presumably you could still define its QualityLevel, but formally
Andre Merzky wrote: that
description wouldn't apply.
Sorry if I jump into the discussion sideways - I am not really part of the glue group, just lurking here.
Anyway: yes, you certainly can have services w/o endpoints, or at least which have no need to expose an endpoint. For example, we have a garbage collection service which at specific intervals scans our data bases and purges expired entries. That service is never contacted from client side, and nobody really cares where it runs (apart from the deployment point of view of course).
And yes, that service could very well specify quality levels, such as run frequency.
Not sure if that is relevant to the discussion, just wanted to throw that in ;-)
Best, Andre.
-- Nothing is ever easy.
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Steve Fisher said:
I agree - and this implies that a Service must have at least one endpoint otherwise it is useless.
No, it doesn't - we have potential use cases for internally-accessible services, e.g. a classic SE which only uses "file" access. Anyway this discussion is rather running off the rails: the fact is that the schema does allow publication of a Service without an Endpoint, and there isn't likely to be any particular difficulty in assigning it a QualityLevel. All I was intending to point out was that the existing text description of the attribute doesn't cover such a case - probably it's enough to add a suitably-placed "usually"! Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
Hi Laurence, I could give a short presentation on the TeraGrid's GLUE 2 implementation. Thanks, JP On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:30 AM, Laurence Field wrote:
The GLUE WG has a 90 minute session starting at 15:30 on Thursday 18th March. In order to prepare for this session we will need to know who will from this group will be attending and what presentations will be given.
I will be attending and propose to give three short presentations.
1) A quick overview of Glue 2.0 2) The LDAP rendering 3) The status and plans for roll out within EGEE/WLCG
If anyone would like to give an additional presentation, can suggest a presentation that we should include or would like to propose a discussion topic, please let me know.
Thanks,
Laurence
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
participants (7)
-
Andre Merzky -
andre＠merzky.net
-
Balazs Konya -
JP Navarro -
Laurence Field -
stephen.burke＠stfc.ac.uk -
Steve Fisher