Mark McKeown wrote:
Perhaps there are other reasons for using a single message to interact with multiple jobs?
Surely it depends on the complexity of the jobs? I can well imagine clients wanting to interact with all atomic jobs within a workflow and not knowing the details of what those atoms are. To make this a more concrete assertion, saying "suspend every job related to this workflow" is clearly of use to higher-level services, and I would not expect the owner of a complex workflow (e.g. one that does parameter-space exploration) to know the ids of everything they've kicked off. And since such things might involve hundreds of thousands of atomic work parcels, interacting with each one individually would not be a reasonable expansion in the amount of work to be performed, even with low-level protocol hacks. Simplicity and scalability have to be balanced against each other, alas. Donal.