Hi all, FWIW, I have mixed feelings on this issue. 4 years ago I thought it would be just great to have exactly the same interface and end-point for job submission/management, for information query, and for file management. We even do have the same interface for job and file management: job is largely characterized by a set of files, after all. And information persistency may well be realized as a set of files, too - why not. But then I killed a job by accident, being sure I deleted a file. So now I think a clear separation is a good think to do. Cheers, Oxana 2009-07-15 00:10, Laurence Field пишет:
Hi Andrew,
With the diverse types of services that we deal with in our infrastructure, I can't imagine a situation where they have all implemented an interface using the same technology. This is due to many factors including but not limited to: legacy, time scales, priories, ideologies, trends, fads etc. However, we have to somehow link all these services together, which is why I believe that a parallel system is the most flexible option. If an agreed information interface emerges, the exiting interfaces could be extended to provide this but the only advantage I see is aesthetics rather than function.
Having said that, one of the advantages that I would see by having this added to BES is that developers of the interface would also have to worry about providing the information, which would save us the trouble :) We could then create a simple adaptor to extract the information and pull it into the parallel information system. In order to achieve this, a simple interface such as an XML document would suffice. Examples of such documents can be found on the GLUE 2.0 wiki page.
http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE2XM...
Laurence
Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
Laurence,
I agree completely. During the BES discussion we came to an impasse over this: some arguing that that we could use WS-RF resource properties ... and then have a single mechanism for all types of resources. Others, including but not limited to Microsoft, would have nothing to do with WS-RF. In the end to get consensus the WG decided on a separate function - very ugly. We in Genesis II support both the WS-RF mechanism and the OGSA-BES mechanism. The same thing by the way happened over notification, except in the end the WG basically punted.
I personally think that the BES endpoint should provide a mechanism to get the information, but that the spec should be mute on how that information is aggregated or used.
A
_______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg