On Friday 15 May 2009 16:54, Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
Aleksandr, RNS is not a requirement. It shows up in my "GES Realization via Existing Specifications" as a means to meet the requirements. I personally think it is a good idea and allows us to work with an existing code base and access layer. Listing a directory of things is pretty common.
Looks like a good idea for me (personally). I think You should make one more logical step and suggest to drop BES. No kidding. As You explained usage of RNS diring last telecon it can do anything BES does. One simply has to provide some data transmission capability to trasfer bigger chunks of data to/from nodes (not sure about term) presented by RNS. And that could be same ByteIO proposed by You or even simpler - HTTP(S) which is already used as underlying protocol of SOAP anyway. Actally we are using similar approach in ARC (production version) except that it uses GridFTP (and hence TVFS) instead of RNS. Concerning "work with an existing code" I'm not sure. I doubt many of participating projects have an implementation of RNS. And those developed probably won't be very reusable in different environment. Do You have an implementation for libxml2? On another hand AFAIR RNS is not a complex interface and wouldn't take much effort to implement. A.K.
A
-----Original Message----- From: pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:pgi-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Aleksandr Konstantinov Sent: Friday, May 15, 2009 9:32 AM To: pgi-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [Pgi-wg] Promised document
On Friday 15 May 2009 13:10, David Wallom wrote:
Hi All,
Can we first agree (on the list, possibly with a doodle vote) that the requirements described in Andrews document were accurate. At this first stage please ignore the implementation, just are the requirements correct and if not what changes are required.
Is RNS requirement or implementation?
A.K.
David
On 15/05/2009 09:19, "Moreno Marzolla" <moreno.marzolla@pd.infn.it>
wrote:
David Wallom wrote:
Hi Moreno,
I would consider that this is becoming a fundamental problem within
group. When it was setup it was certainly the impression of those
the that
started off the discussions etc that it would be a profiling and current standards extension effort rather than all new standards...
As far as I'm concerned, I have always been very careful to talk about "profiling and/or writing something new", as it was never said nor suggested that profiling was absolutely the way to go. I agree that this is a fundamental issue, and I'm concerned about any real possibility to reach an agreement.
Moreno.
_______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg
_______________________________________________ Pgi-wg mailing list Pgi-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/pgi-wg