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;
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 specdoesn't then that implies that some other profile is free to define thesemantics differently. Is that really what you want to allow? Thatseems like it will invite unexpected mishaps for anyone who tries to runboth 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 PMTo: Michel DrescherCc: 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 changesto 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 somethingthat 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 mountstuff 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 dothink the HPC Profile should probably speak to this with respect to theexecution 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.