Hi; This is in response to several emails that were sent out on the subject of what things to define in JSDL and what things to define in profiles that layer on top of JSDL. I understand the desire to avoid restricting JSDL to just the HPC use cases. That said, actual implementations of JSDL that desire to be interoperable will have to pick precise definitions for what each JSDL element means. All I'm advocating is that we stick to good software engineering principles and avoid ending up in situations where someone who wants to run both HPC and non-HPC workloads has to needlessly deal with context-sensitive definitions of JSDL elements. Along those lines, I like your suggestion of defining a base profile document that seeks to specify those things that we believe are "universally" definable across all workloads. I haven't, however, thought about how large - or how small - such a base profile would be. Marvin. ________________________________ From: A S McGough [mailto:asm@doc.ic.ac.uk] Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:47 AM To: Marvin Theimer Cc: Andreas Savva; Michel Drescher; Donal K. Fellows; JSDL Working Group; ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org; Ed Lassettre; Ming Xu (WINDOWS) Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view Matching in with some of the comments from Andreas the JSDL specification is the language and not how it is used. If there are mistakes in the language these should be fixed. That said there may be some justification for writing a base profile document which all profiles (such as HPC) should conform with. Thoughts? steve.. Marvin Theimer wrote: Hi; If the HPC profile defines the semantics of something and the JSDL spec doesn't then that implies that some other profile is free to define the semantics differently. Is that really what you want to allow? That seems like it will invite unexpected mishaps for anyone who tries to run both HPC and other workloads on a grid. Marvin. -----Original Message----- From: Andreas Savva [mailto:andreas.savva@jp.fujitsu.com] Sent: Monday, June 12, 2006 11:10 PM To: Michel Drescher Cc: Donal K. Fellows; Marvin Theimer; JSDL Working Group; ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org; Ed Lassettre; Ming Xu (WINDOWS) Subject: Re: [ogsa-bes-wg] Re: [jsdl-wg] Questions and potential changes to JSDL, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view Comments inline. Michel Drescher wrote: Donal K. Fellows wrote: Marvin Theimer wrote: If we narrow the definitions of mountpoint and mountsource enough and precisely describe their semantics then we might arrive at something that could be fairly widely used. I'm thinking of things like saying that you can't navigate "out" of a file system via "cd ..", etc. This is definitely something to explore. Change "can't" to "shouldn't" and I'd agree. I don't regard the mount stuff as being a way of describing security enforcement points. Systems can do it that way, but at least some won't. +1 from me. In fact, I think this should be part of JSDL in a "maintenance release" sort of publication anyway. -1 from me for adding this in JSDL. It is not a language issue. I do think the HPC Profile should probably speak to this with respect to the execution environment that a job should expect. In fact, I'd be happy enough with the profile stating that paths in JSDL documents should not contain either the "." or the ".." elements at all. That's a fairly strong requirement and guarantees that the job won't fail on systems where your style of semantics are enforced. Again, +1 (and having it normatively mentioned in the JSDL publication) I too see this is a profiling issue. I have no problem for the HPC profile to make a stronger statement than the JSDL spec on this as a security consideration. So -1 from me for adding this in the JSDL spec normatively. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------