October 2009 - saga-rg - lists.ogf.org

Sessions at OGF-27
by Andre Merzky 14 Oct '09

14 Oct '09

Please note that the SAGA session time slots differ in the OGF27 leaflet and the OGF27 booklet! The correct sessions slots are those given in the leaflet: Wednesday and Thursday, 1pm. Also, please remember to read, or at least skim over, the documents listed in http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1767 Cheers, Andre. -- Nothing is ever easy.

1 0

Re: [SAGA-RG] Fwd: [Gat-devel] Proposal for changes in the glite-adaptor
by Ashiq Anjum 12 Oct '09

12 Oct '09

2 1

OGF27: session preparation
by Andre Merzky 11 Oct '09

11 Oct '09

Hi all, As a reminder: our two sessions at OGF27 are currently scheduled at: Wednesday 13:00 in room MB-150 Thursday 13:00 in room MB-252 The agenda for *both* sessions is at http://www.ogf.org/gf/event_schedule/index.php?id=1767 -- those items we don't manage in the first session will simply be carried over into the second. At the same URL you'll find a number of documents attached, which we will discuss during the sessions. It would be very helpful, and significantly increase the session's productivity, if you _all_ could - skim over the SAGA Core Errata document - fast-read the SAGA Core Experience document (in particular introduction and conclusions) - thoroughly read the three expansion documents (CPR, Advert, Messages). Derek: it would be great if you specifically could go through the CPR doc thoroughly, and come up with as much criticism as you can: I'd love to see that one submitted after this OGF, finally. Ole, can I assign the same task for the Advert doc to you? Please let me know if you don't find time for that though! Shantenu, Thilo: can you please take care of the Message extension? I think you are the ones who know best in what direction that extension should evolve... Thanks, cheers, and cu in Banff I hope! Andre. -- Nothing is ever easy.

1 0

Semantics of NSEntry.move() ?
by Mathijs den Burger 05 Oct '09

05 Oct '09

Hi all, The notes of ns_entry.move(saga::url target) say: - an identical copy exists at target - the original entry is removed The postcondition of ns_entry.remove() says: the original entry is closed and removed Does this imply that ns_entry.move() also closes the original ns_entry? The spec is a bit vague here... -Mathijs

2 1