RE: [ogsa-bes-wg] Attempted distillation of "Questionsandpotential changes to BES, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view"
Marvin: If we are support WS-Transfer, I think that means we need a WS-Transfer binding for BES? Ian. At 05:02 PM 7/15/2006 -0700, Marvin Theimer wrote:
So to summarize...
----------------
There are four implementation options that should be supported by the
spec for obtaining public state data:
1) WS-Transfer,
2) WSRF,
3) public state accessor operations,
4) basic interop.
An accessor operation for obtaining the activity status MUST be included
in each of the above implementation options.
Official QNames SHALL be defined for options 1-3.
The GetInteropData operation MUST return a list of QNames that
represents which of the above options is supported. An empty list
implies that ONLY option #4 is available.
----------------
We should also define what port types option #2 implies or break it up
into three different options for each of the three port types used for
resource property queries in WSRF (wsrp:GetResourceProperty,
wsrp:GetMultipleResourceProperties, and wsrp:QueryResourceProperties).
This sounds good to me. I presume that basic interopmeans just the two accessor operations for activity status and complete activity infoset?
Marvin.
_______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster, Director, Computation Institute Argonne National Laboratory & University of Chicago Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439 Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 Tel: +1 630 252 4619. Web: www.ci.uchicago.edu. Globus Alliance: www.globus.org.
Hi; Yes, though there is the interesting question of whether it's worth pursuing that right away or whether it would be better to wait a bit until better tooling for WS-Transfer(-addendum) comes out. I'm personally inclined toward the latter approach. Marvin. ________________________________ From: Ian Foster [mailto:foster@mcs.anl.gov] Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:16 AM To: Marvin Theimer; Peter G. Lane Cc: Ed Lassettre; ogsa-bes-wg@ggf.org Subject: RE: [ogsa-bes-wg] Attempted distillation of "Questionsandpotential changes to BES, as seen from HPC Profile point-of-view" Marvin: If we are support WS-Transfer, I think that means we need a WS-Transfer binding for BES? Ian. At 05:02 PM 7/15/2006 -0700, Marvin Theimer wrote: So to summarize... ---------------- There are four implementation options that should be supported by the spec for obtaining public state data: 1) WS-Transfer, 2) WSRF, 3) public state accessor operations, 4) basic interop. An accessor operation for obtaining the activity status MUST be included in each of the above implementation options. Official QNames SHALL be defined for options 1-3. The GetInteropData operation MUST return a list of QNames that represents which of the above options is supported. An empty list implies that ONLY option #4 is available. ---------------- We should also define what port types option #2 implies or break it up into three different options for each of the three port types used for resource property queries in WSRF (wsrp:GetResourceProperty, wsrp:GetMultipleResourceProperties, and wsrp:QueryResourceProperties). This sounds good to me. I presume that basic interopmeans just the two accessor operations for activity status and complete activity infoset? Marvin. _______________________________________________________________ Ian Foster, Director, Computation Institute Argonne National Laboratory & University of Chicago Argonne: MCS/221, 9700 S. Cass Ave, Argonne, IL 60439 Chicago: Rm 405, 5640 S. Ellis Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 Tel: +1 630 252 4619. Web: www.ci.uchicago.eduhttp://www.ci.uchicago.edu/. Globus Alliance: www.globus.orghttp://www.globus.org/.
participants (2)
-
Ian Foster -
Marvin Theimer