[ogsa-wg] RE: GRIDtoday Edition: Tony Hey: 'Challenging Times for GGF & Standards'
foster at mcs.anl.gov
Thu Mar 3 09:02:37 CST 2005
I wondered when you'd join the debate, and as usual your comments are very
much to the point.
At 06:09 PM 3/1/2005 +0000, Savas Parastatidis wrote:
>Please note that I am not suggesting that WS-RF (and WS-Transfer for
>that matter) is not useful in certain cases. Indeed, in the systems
>management area it may make sense to use them. However, what it is being
>proposed in the OGSA working group (if I understand correctly) is that
>WS-RF be used as the foundation for all high-level services.
I don't think that the OGSA working group would argue for using it as a
foundation for "all high-level services," but I understand that some people
fear that this is intended.
For system management applications (a major focus of OGSA), I do believe
that there is value, as you also note.
>However, a difference
>that I personally see between the WS-RF/WS-Notification and WS-Transfer/
>/WS-Eventing/etc. camps is that the latter is much simpler and
"much simpler" is a relative term of course, but I think we should also
remember that there isn't a lot to even the "more complex"
WSRF/WS-BaseNotification. See Blackberry note below.
>lightweight. Most importantly, the MS suite of specifications is not
>promoted as the uniform, underlying suite of common messaging behaviours
>for all high-level services as WS-RF seems to be. Instead it is some
That's not my understanding of WSRF.
>patterns that are available to be used where they are appropriate. Also,
>WS-Transfer is lightweight so it can be used in very-small-factor
I've seen WSRF implemented on a Blackberry, with the complete
SOAP-WSRF-WSN-WSDM stack occupying 102KB. I *think* that the "small factor"
issue is a red herring. If you want to run on something with just 64KB
memory, you probably shouldn't be using Web services.
>So, it would be interesting to understand from the WSRF architects where
>they feel the WSRF approach is and is not appropriate. E.g. is it
>appropriate for interactions with multiple resources? Should it be used
>in the design of all high-level Grid services? What are the semantics of
>the 'destroy' messages?
Here's my opinions:
* WSRF (or indeed any WS-I-compliant specification) should be used when and
where it's appropriate.
* Semantics of destroy: these are defined fairly clearly in the
* Interactions with multiple resources: I think that's a red herring. E.g.,
a job factory can return EPRs to WS-Resources representing jobs, thus
allowing individual jobs to be monitored and controlled, if needed. The
factory can also maintain a service group representing all jobs, and then
support operations that allow a client to "destroy all jobs that match a
certain pattern" (for example). It's not an either/or.
Ian Foster www.mcs.anl.gov/~foster
Math & Computer Science Div. Dept of Computer Science
Argonne National Laboratory The University of Chicago
Argonne, IL 60439, U.S.A. Chicago, IL 60637, U.S.A.
Tel: 630 252 4619 Fax: 630 252 1997
Globus Alliance, www.globus.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ogsa-wg