Laurent Could you (and/or some other people from your team) join the WG at the GGF 14 and give us a presentation on the topic ?
I think the two solutions are not at the same level, but they both need functions to access them. I think we should first complete the GridRPC interface with data handles and data management functions. without assuming anything on the way they are implemeneted. By just defining functions, we do not assume anything on the underlying support. These functions may be used to access/interface some 'magical' global data management as well as a background support. This will depend on the platform. By defining data management functions in GridRPC, we will provide an homogenous and complete API to clients.
To define an interface, we donot have to assume specific underlying mechanisms, but we have to assume underlying functionality. For example, if we can assume that the underlying system has automatic data-caching and expiration mechanism, we donot have to have an API to control such things. So, I belive, we have to agree on the 'richness' of the underlying system, to define an API. -hidemoto