Quoting [Eddy Caron] (Mar 02 2009):
Dear all,
I think GridRPC with data management can be see by SAGA exactly with the same point of view as the GridRPC without data management. For a SAGA user, the GridRPC API is hidden. Then the 'look and feel' of SAGA is perfect for the SAGA API but I don't understand why the GridRPC API and SAGA API should follow the same look and feel.
We started to discuss about the data management during GGF number 2 (in 2001 at Washington DC), and about the necessity to deal with this at the GridRPC WG level. After many discussions between Grid-RPC members, the SAGA WG (with Andre) helped us to decide to start to create this document (it was during the OGF'19 in 2007 at Chapel Hill). Indeed the SAGA WG requested to have this kind of feature to integrate a full version of GridRPC into SAGA.
I have discussed with Gaël Le Mahec. He works with us since a few years and he could be the perfect manpower required for the SAGA group.
This would be great :-) Cheers, Andre.
See you soon in Catania.
Best Regards, Eddy
Le 23 févr. 09 à 00:06, Andre Merzky a écrit :
Good points.
It would be cool though if you guys could help us to create a new RPC package at some point. In the SAGA group, it is a question of available manpower, and also of available expertise, if/wehn we can come up with and updated RPC package on our own...
Cheers, Andre.
Quoting [Hidemoto Nakada] (Feb 22 2009):
Andre and Steven,
The following is my opinion.
- SAGA l/f is cool. for the users who want to use several capabilities of Grid, SAGA l/f will ease their burden.
- on the other hand, SAGA i/f is too rich for the users who just want to use one capability from the Grid, such as GridRPC. Without SAGA l/f, the API could be designed as simple as possible
- once the specific API (such as GridRPC) is specified, to change the i/f to adopt SAGA l/f will be straight forward and relatively easy. l/f is not essential, for me.
- therefore, in my opinion, the best way to specify an API on a specific area is that, -- specify the API in a way that is as simple as possible, -- then, adopt some l/f for the API if it is required.
regards,
- Hidemoto.
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Andre Merzky <andre@merzky.net> wrote:
Quoting [Steven Newhouse] (Feb 22 2009):
Hi Hidemoto,
We've never had such discussion at all.
Well, the SAGA group had this discussion - also with the DRMAA and GridCPR folx btw. And yes, we hoped that, at some point, people would simply adopt our L&F part, and add packages.
But at the end its up to the individual groups if they want to do that, or not. Let a thousand flowers bloom, right? Oh well, three... ;-)
Anyway, SAGA people will certainly try to add an update to their RPC package, which also incorporates the data management features. In previous OGF discussions, we already checked if that is expressable/implementable in SAGA (it is).
As Hidemoto said, that would be on top of GridRPC. Yes, duplication of effort to some extent.
Cheers, Andre.
What makes you think like that?
From conversations I've had at past OGFs! If the conversation has not taken place then it should. Please try and find some time with the SAGA folks in Catania.
It might be possible to adopt the SAGA look and feel, but we are not interested in the part now. For us, the part is not essential.
I would like a stronger reason to present to the standards council than the group feels 'that it its not a good idea'.
Steven -- Nothing is ever easy.
-- Nothing is ever easy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eddy Caron. Mcf ENS Lyon ENS Lyon - LIP - Projet GRAAL 46 Allee d'Italie, 69364 Lyon Cedex 07, France E-Mail : Eddy.Caron@ens-lyon.fr [ Tel : 04.37.28.76.46 ][ Web page : http://graal.ens-lyon.fr/~ecaron ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Nothing is ever easy.