Hi;
[...]
If you allow for the notion of file systems and mount points to be in
the core spec then I would argue that you are implicitly buying into systems that also support the notion of current working directory (some jobs may of course not use it).
Good argument. :-)
Yes. However, it does *not* imply that the current working directory a) is always the same regardless the container a job has been sent to b) is even relative to (or relatively addressable to or from) a particular other directory on the container (e.g. common libs dir) c) is configured to be "cd'd out" of to another directory elsewhere on the container d) is even something that should be externally published in its local incarnation e) or any other "abstractable"(?) directory (e.g. "ROOT") is actually a mount point in the sense of NFS. (Yes, using "moint point" as element name in JSDL may be a bad choice.) I guess there is a need to agree on an abstract naming pattern for such use cases. We should short cut with WS-Naming on this issue, I think. [MARVIN] This is an excellent summary of some of the things that need to be made explicit in order to enable interop. Marvin.