I definitely was in favour of using WS-Names in order to achieve this goal, since my service is definitely (in a later poster's email) "old style", and uses integer job identifiers. :-) I don't recall the reasons why people didn't want to use WS-Names. Maybe it was that some didn't want them mandated. I agree that maybe we should profile this. Perhaps we can address this in the HPC Profile sessions at OGF20? -- Chris On 18/3/07 11:43, "Donal K. Fellows" <donal.k.fellows@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
Steven Newhouse wrote:
The other thing is that from my observation so far the ReferenceParameters contains only job id and that's all, no other information is there.
That is required by the BES specification. Other services and systems are free to use the ReferenceParameter system to provide other information and do...
You may have identified a need for an optional human readable identifier...
As I understand the currents of opinion within the OGSA-WG, the idea is that the EPRs out of a BES will actually be WS-Names, and that the abstract name parts of each WS-Name will be the human-readable part that you are looking for. This isn't officially recommended yet though, mostly due to unpleasant politics and the fact that nobody's written the profile yet[*]. (I can't remember if such a profiling is on the current work roster or not; it might not be if people decide they need a few more things first to make a good profile.)
I suggest that if you're dealing with non-names, you should generate some magic names yourself in your portal and maintain a mapping from those to EPRs. You could even do some clever stuff so that the portal acts as the naming service for the dumb BES instances. That's the sort of thing that people developing portals for this sort of thing have had to do in the past anyway.
Donal. [* Correct me if I'm wrong! ]
-- ogsa-bes-wg mailing list ogsa-bes-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogsa-bes-wg