Future plans for JSDL
All, We had a session here at GGF16 where we brain stormed some ideas for where JSDL should go next. This also included some material which had come up from the last OGSA f2f meeting. Attached are the edited slides from this session which lists some of the areas where people think that JSDL should look into. The things that need doing now include: 1) Request from the list for items that were missed out from the session. 2) Classify these items as: a) Out of Scope (TM) b) Extensions for JSDL 1.0 c) New functionality for JSDL 2.0 d) Separate to JSDL versions (eg items for a primer document) 3) Prioritise the items. From the session parallel jobs seemed to be the thing most people wanted next. steve.. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dr A. Stephen McGough http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~asm ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Technical Coordinator, London e-Science Centre, Imperial College London, Department of Computing, 180 Queen's Gate, London SW7 2BZ, UK tel: +44 (0)207-594-8409 fax: +44 (0)207-581-8024 ------------------------------------------------------------------------
A S McGough wrote:
3) Prioritise the items. From the session parallel jobs seemed to be the thing most people wanted next.
Just a quick note to say that the main reason for doing the parallel jobs stuff next (probably starting from the base proposed by the people from Barcelona; they've identified the stuff that's needed after all) is that otherwise there'll be several different groups doing it themselves in an incompatible way. To me, that says it is an *excellent* idea to foster a standard extension for this and to expedite this. OK, I think other extensions/improvements are more important in the grand scheme of things, but the fact that people are doing it now forces our hand. Looking at the parallel proposal, I have to ask how it is supposed to be combined with the POSIX extension, since without that it's not going to work (still need command-line args, env-vars, etc.) Once we've nailed that down, I think it will be just A Simple Matter Of Writing. :-) Donal.
+1 Thanks Donal for the summary. Cheers, Michel On 23 Feb 2006, at 9:11, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
A S McGough wrote:
3) Prioritise the items. From the session parallel jobs seemed to be the thing most people wanted next.
Just a quick note to say that the main reason for doing the parallel jobs stuff next (probably starting from the base proposed by the people from Barcelona; they've identified the stuff that's needed after all) is that otherwise there'll be several different groups doing it themselves in an incompatible way. To me, that says it is an *excellent* idea to foster a standard extension for this and to expedite this. OK, I think other extensions/improvements are more important in the grand scheme of things, but the fact that people are doing it now forces our hand.
Looking at the parallel proposal, I have to ask how it is supposed to be combined with the POSIX extension, since without that it's not going to work (still need command-line args, env-vars, etc.) Once we've nailed that down, I think it will be just A Simple Matter Of Writing. :-)
Donal.
participants (3)
-
A S McGough -
Donal K. Fellows -
Michel Drescher