[ogsa-bes-wg] BES spec
Michel Drescher
Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com
Tue Jul 4 07:24:53 CDT 2006
Folks, Dave,
David Snelling wrote:
> Chris,
>
> On 3 Jul 2006, at 18:49, Christopher Smith wrote:
>
>> Another rendering for this, which Marvin and I explored a little bit when
>> writing our document, is:
>>
>> <ActivityState BaseState="running">
>> <SubState StateName="profile1:Stagingin>
>> <SubState StateName="profile1:Held"/>
>> </SubState>
>> </ActivityState>
>
> I don't think we need two different tags. ActivityState only should
> work, as the substate concept is captured structurally. My personal
> preference is still for the subtyping approach, but I can't see myself
> winning on that one.
+1 on having one element only.
>> It would also be nice to support being in multiple sub states (if it
>> makes
>> sense) because of various profiles and operations, so if (for example)
>> I was
>> in the above state, but the user also suspended the job, I could be in:
>>
>> <ActivityState BaseState="running">
>> <SubState StateName="profile1:Stagingin>
>> <SubState StateName="profile1:Held"/>
>> </SubState>
>> <SubState StateName="profile2:Suspended"/>
>> </ActivityState>
>
> This is both interesting and very scary. On the interesting side this
> make sense:
>
> <ActivityState StateName="running">
> < ActivityState StateName="profile1:StagingIn/>
> < ActivityState StateName="profile1:Held/>
> </ActivityState>
>
> The problems I think will arise when we start to describe the semantics.
... let alone the heroic and at the same time cumbersome task to
maintain a list of incompatible activity states that come from two (or
even more) different profiles.
> It is scary enough that I don't want to try thinking about it with out
> others around and a beer.
As you know, I almost always agree on "spirited" discussions. :-)
Cheers,
Michel
--
Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe
+44 20 8606 4834
More information about the ogsa-bes-wg
mailing list