Hiro Kishimoto wrote:
- We think MJFS corresponds to container instead of Job Manager. - MJFS and others cover most of "container" interface but not all. For example, BES-WG will define check-pointing interface which is not supported by GRAM. - GRAM covers "job" interface, which is out of BES-WG's scope.
That's funny, because that does not meet my recollection of the discussion in the BES f2f. Instead, I believe that we agreed that the definition of a common base set of activity port types was going to be probably impossible. There seemed to be substantial agreement that the definition of job managability interfaces for "POSIX activities" (i.e. those derived from a JSDL POSIXApplication) was both worthwhile and in-scope. OK, I may have misinterpreted what was said, but that was definitely my impression. I'd also equivocate over checkpointing somewhat, as I got the impression that that was an example of something that people felt to be part of an "Advanced Execution Service" (we were seeking to distinguish between Basic and Advanced at the time). Donal Fellows.