This is a static archive of the previous Open Grid Forum Redmine content management system saved from host redmine.ogf.org file /dmsf_files/7524?download= at Fri, 04 Nov 2022 15:53:19 GMT GGF Session #1 Notes

GGF Session #1 Notes

Note taker: Stuart Schaefer [Sschaefer@softricity.com]

 

Agenda Bashing - Dejan

-          Review specs, today foundation, tomorrow SmartFrog, Friday XML

-          What are required changes

-          Make commitments to formally submit

-          Tomorrow do a demo of SmartFrog

-          Friday address relationship of CDDLM to other WGs (OGSA, CGS, DAIS, DMTF Utility Computing, DCML, DMTF CIM)

-          Other specs

o        Basic services

o        Component model

-          Prototype implementations

-          Contributions to OGSA

 

Foundation Specification Review

-          Two external representatives have reviewed the document thus far

-          Peter G. ask to ensure we review for newbies what the spec is about

-          Purpose is to show other groups what we are about

-          Kojo – process – thus is not a normative document, it is an informative document, but we will still go through the formal GGF process.  We expect to update it as we go along, though.

-          CDDLM is about three things – config description, deployment, lifecycle management

o        Configuration is limited to the deployment description only

§         WSDM is general purpose config management

o        All functionality is in support of deployment including lifecycle

-          Q: How do we draw the line between applications and infrastructure?

o        Services vs. Resources

-          Q: Should we change Figure 2 to meet OGSA definition within PE?

-          Functionality Requirements – One basic service deployment with 3 requirements

o        Q: What about runtime change requirements?

§         Presumed to be handled by WSDM

o        Q: Who is doing the description?  Who is the beneficiary?

§         Operator has provided? SP or Developer.

§         Not clear who are the players

§         Need to add information from the slides to clarify

o        Q: Supply and Demand of services/resources.  Will we make recommendations of how to do this at runtime/dynamically?

§         The line will be split us vs. PE

-          Will we need to relax security requirement as we are a privileged service?

-          Q: Give an example of services that might be deployed through this?

-          GSI is not a ratified standard for security yet, is careful on using it in our documents.  Should be Grid Security.

-          Program Execution will be above us, but we will be interdependent, so deploying PE will be non-trivial

-          Q: What about JXTA compatibility?

o        Do we need to bridge to these interfaces?

o        The general move to WSRF will be covering the differences in Web Services

o        Hiro: Change all Grid Services references to Web Services

o        Be neutral to avoid needed to refactor document

-          Use Cases

o        Data Center is the base case

o        IT implies non-data center use

o        Utility Computing implies more frequent changes

o        Complex Business Case implies heterogeneous environment and requirements

o        Web Service deployment covers development use – deployment is integral to the development process

-          Q: How we described functional requirements differs from other groups

-          Q: Sufficient level of detail?

o        Be more specific on figure 6

o        Related specs: Drama(?), JSDL, GRAAP

o        Emphasize ability to handle large, generalized systems – maybe mention other types of resources that we can handle to clarify how generalized the problem we can solve is

-          Plans for formal submission

o        Make changes from GGF

o        Put to mailing list/GridForge

o        Submit to GGF

o        Q: Is the document self-standing without SmartFrog?

o        Q: Are you only focusing on OGSA things?

§         Yes and no – yes this is GGF, but there are multiple reference implementations coming or in existence

§         Document seems too focused on OGSA

§         Dejan: Can we mention in the document that its use is broader?

·         We don’t build shoes.  We build tools to build shoes.

 

Jem Treadwell defines Provisioning

-          Owns the OGSA glossary

-          The CDDLM team will define these terms

-          Q: Do we need brokering to make scheduling/allocation? No, it is part of scheduling.

-          Stuart: Would want to make sure that we provide interfaces for lifecycle management even if we are not ultimately responsible

-          Dejan: Does the OGSA Glossary imply source and responsible party for a term/system?

 

 

GGF Session #2

Note taker: Stuart Schaefer [Sschaefer@softricity.com]

 

SmartFrog system review

-          Deployment descriptor leaves hard decisions to end by using lazy binding

-          Dejan: this spec has implications on the underlying basic services specification?  Do we need any more information in the spec to cover?

o        Security

o        Generic needs vs. implementation specific

o        Runtime mapping from language to service needed

-          Dejan: Once we identify these requirements, what is the delta of SmartFrog to the Grid model?

-          Dejan: What is missing?  What could be improved?

-          Nakata-San: How do I deal with discoverable or runtime arbitrary numbers/config?

o        An implementation detail of the component, but the framework can handle it

-          Sun: How about moving files around as part of deployment?

o        Contained in the configuration data, but not necessarily in the spec

-          Dejan: Should basic services and runtime cover these issues?

o        Under the covers they support, where does it go

o        Language spec is sufficiently narrow

-          Q: Modify the examples to take on Grid services flavor to show how the spec should be used more clearly

-          Relationship between syntax and semantics

-          Once we do the XML spec, we should find dependencies

-          Keep the separate specifications to keep the size of the document down

-          Q: How tied is SmartFrog to some configuration assumptions?  Can it be used for non-deployment needs?

o        Yes, but you are deep in the runtime

o        At the moment, you can use the Open Source Linux system for whatever you want

o        Language is independent of the deployment system

 

 

CDDLM-WG, Minutes, Mar 10, 2004

            Note taker: Daniel Templeton, don.templeton@sva.com

                            Takashi Kojo, kojo@bk.jp.nec.com

 

 

SmartFrog Language Spec., Peter Toft

 

 

SmartFrog is in use for 7, 8 years at HP. Its CDL provides way to

describe how to deploy applications. CDDLM needs descriptive

Language and SF is just an option.

 

Peter described the language along with the Language Spec. Document.

 

 

2. Purpose of the document

 To present one language specification

 

3. Notion

  Component model of the CDL does not depend on the language.

  Component is just generic attribute set.

 

4. Requirement of the language

   To provide description of components, support for

Parameterized attribute, inherit template.

 

5. Syntax

   Component is a collection of attributes

   SF language allows hierarchical attribute definitions

   Attribute pairs are ordered.

   Uses inheritance semantics

   Scope of References

            PARENT, ATTRIB, ROOT, THIS

 

Q: How important is this structure?

A: It's very useful in practice. Composability is very important.

Q: Is inheritance critical? Is it doable in XML?

A: It's very useful, and feasible to do in XML.

 

   Supports references among elements/attributes

   Attributes are addressable using a path-like notation

   LAZY references are not resoled at compile-time

 

Q: Who decide timing of resolution?

A: It is resolved when the tool find it during deployment phases.

Q: How natural is it to support SF language constructs in XLM?

A: We will generate a document.

   Parameterization can be used to simplify initialization of complex structures.

   Allows #include which can be assigned context.

   Top level attribute set is called "main".

 

Language Semantics

            Transformation is 3 steps:

            Type, placement, link resolution

            Functions

 

Q: Is there way to generate system unique names?

A: Use next

 

Q: System unique name space across deployments is difficult.

A: Names are only for installation, configuration. Multi-systems

   are not an issue.

 

 

Configuration Definition Example

 

   Steve Loughran described an Example of configuration definition.

 

 

Q: What are the implications for the underlying services?

A: The current spec. is less implementation specific than before.

A: This spec. has no implications on the underlying systems.

Q: LAZY has implications on deployment systems, for example.

A: That is a general implication, independent of this spec.

Q: What is the delta between SF and final language spec.?

A: <No Answer>

Q: Can SF describe arbitrary containers, such as 2 or more services?

A: Yes. It's really an implementation detail of the component.

Q: How to describe how to move installation files around

A: Not a part of the language spec. It's part of the runtime/deployment spec.

Q: Shouldn’t the example be about grid instead of web services?

A: Let's do the grid example as an additional example.

Q: How to handle various language spec relationships?

A: Single ref doc with several binding docs?

Q: Can I just take this language and use it independently?

A: Yes, except the things like LAZY binding.

A: Yes. There's an open source version available that only needs a JVM.

A: The open source version can give back a fully resolved document or

  a set of Java objects.

Q: Is the document sufficient enough? Is there any missing piece?

A: Description about provisioning.

A: Semantics regarding with deployment service and run time.

A: After taking all the feedback today, we would like to submit

  the document.

 

 

GGF Session #3

Note taker: Stuart Schaefer [Sschaefer@softricity.com]

 

Agenda Bashing

-          Review previous meetings

-          Inform group about afternoon meeting concerning relationship of CDDLM to other WGs

Main Topic – CDL XML

-          Introduction to CDL and CDDLM for SOA

-          Design alternative for attribute sets – [Alt-1] verbose is easier to implement

-          Some discussion on schema validation – alternative is to not require any schema, and allow xsd:any to rule the day

-          Q: Why not just use XML Schemas?  Did schemas make things too complicated?

o        Stuart votes for anything which allows the full extent of XML and XSLT and other tools to be used

o        Steve votes for doing paper testing on usability of 1 vs. 2

o        Jun will write up some examples based on SmartFrog examples

-          Talk to JSDL team about how they are defining content locations

-          Q: Where are we defining the security credentials of a service to logon under?  Is JSDL doing this?

-          Q: With lazy references, why do P2P resolve references?

o        Do not need to define at language level

-          Q: What about redefinition or re-configuration of system structure at runtime?

-          Q: Are we putting deployment semantics into the language?

-          Q: What are we responsible for?

-          Q: What about order dependencies?

o        Does it need to be encoded in component description?

o        Do we let users tinker with state?

o        All that is relevant to this group is exist/non-exist, bound or unbound

-          Whatever language we end up with should be easier to use than WSDL

-          Q: What is the relevance of this?  Isn’t there anything else out there that does this?

More Agenda Bashing

 

 

Note taker: Peter Toft peter.toft@hp.com

 

CDDLM Notes: GGF11, Session 3, Discussion of the XML-based language

Also see the slides that were presented by Jun.

 

Introduction: this is a discussion, rather than a finalised spec.

 

Setting the scene: background about components and component services: the notion of resource can be hierarchical. A Linux server can be a resource, and app server running on a Linux server can also be a resource.

 

Each resource provides a component service which allows the resource to be configured and controlled, and an accompanying component template. Component templates are combined and specialised to create complete deployment requests. When a deployment is requested, resources are allocated, then the deployment proceeds using the component services.

 

Language discussion: XML alternative codings:

 

Rather like WSDL. Import and include are like SmartFrog’s but may need to be more specific.

 

Q. The scope of the uniqueness of QNames is the nominated namespace.

 

There are two alternatives to attribute encoding presented (Alt-1 and Alt-2) – basically one generic schema, versus schemas for each component. One is easier to implement, but harder to use – the other is the opposite. It was observed that this is the same as the choices in SOAP section 5 encoding.

 

A drawback of Alt-2 is the requirement for defining schemas, though we could escape to admitting arbitrary XML (and hence make schemas effectively optional).

 

Jun’s opinion is that we should focus on Alt-2, maybe including Alt-1 as an alternative.

 

Q. The obvious question is why not just use standard XML schema – why can’t you just use XML for this. We need justification for why we take this approach that makes the case for not just using XML. After all, XML is fairly extensible. [Inheritance and variable linking needed?]

 

We need to think about who will write these documents? Will tools generate this code or humans? WSDL is unreadable but useful.

 

Jun will write some examples that help us compare the alternatives.

 

Mapping to the component model:

 

Comment: There is an interface to the JSDL group in terms of how we specify how to identify the file/application content.

 

Discussion of deployment ordering, and startup processing (start, deploy, …).

 

Comment: how are circular LAZY references resolved?

 

There is an issue around redeployment – how can we restart one component in a system, without affecting the complete system?

 

Security: who owns component services? Are the components our own, or are they considered to be infrastructure. There are different security considerations. We believe that both models should be supported, but we’re not sure how to do this yet. We need to understand how what we are doing maps onto the underlying security models.

 

How does JSDL do this? JSDL does not support any specific mapping to security models.

 

Attribute constraints for consistency. Discussion about whether semantics of deployment should be reflected in the language (e.g. lifetime and requirement for the presence of certain attributes).

 

Discussion of encroachment of our scope on the management domain, also overlap / potential to use OGSA services for status monitoring/recovery (so we should map onto this).

 

Discussion of whether to include pre-conditions / ordering of lifecycle management operations in the language level: do we incorporate / delegate this to policy management services, or do we build components that embody this dependency management in a deployment component. Comment that we should leave this out for now, maybe address in a later phase.

 

Dependencies and assertions.

 

Actions:

 

       Put more of background materials up on GridForge

       Generate more content around motivation and alternatives: e.g. Peter to put some more detail about alternative data description languages

 

 

GGF Session #4

Note taker: Stuart Schaefer [Sschaefer@softricity.com]

 

Agenda Bashing

 

Any Groups missing from our invited list

-          CMM is now WSDM and CMM

-          CIM is the product of DMTF, there is no DMTF CIM group

 

Our relation can be administrative or architectural/interface

 

Q: How much are you thinking about the networking, such as path provisioning?

-          Dejan: Not.  As a group it is not our primary objective.  It can be added later.

Q: Are any of the group related to workflow management

-          Dejan: Just need to relate to others to make sure there is no confusion

-          WFM-RG, EG-RG

 

Q (CMM) : What is the work that is required?

-          What are the interfaces involved?

-          How do we manage resources?

 

Q: What is DMTF Utility Computing doing?

-          Creating a UML Model repository of configuration management information

-          All DMTF groups are working on the MOF and profiles for CIM classes

 

Dejan introduces what the group is doing…..

 

Q: We should do everything in CIM?  Anything missing from CIM should be sent to the DMTF?

-          Jen: There are alternate ways.  CIM does not contain all of the attributes that this group might need.

 

Q: What about JSDL or PE?

-          Both are early and we are hoping to work with them?

 

Volunteers to work with groups

What kind of timeline do we want?  4 weeks to interact and come back with a report

-          Relationship summary

-          Conflicts, overlaps, holes, different views

-          Synergies

-          Plans of action, if any

 

Q: What kind of resources are you thinking of deploying

-          GT3, services, something simple to start and then move on from there

 

Q: Do you see the group going wider to provisioning bandwidth and other things?

-          We would like to complete this issue first.

 

Dejan: What do you think about the overall process? PE is going slow; we are hoping to be aggressive?

-          Should find Ravi or Andrew Grimshaw to make sure they are on board

-          PE seems to be crystallizing

-          SmartFrog is almost complete, XML spec is coming along

 

Q: How is this used to deploy services?  A Web Service or just its infrastructure?

-          Both

 

Q: You mentioned under-provisioning.  How are you going to be responsible for this?

-          We are not.  Just a conduit to decision making authorities

-          However, we often have best local information

 

Q: How are we going to interact with PE?

-          Don’t know.  PE is all over the place.

 

Brussels – demo, workshop proposed, prototype reference.  Bring other groups to see the work

 

Q: What is the focus of the group?  How does it overlap with DAIS?

-          No overlap seems to be here

 

Q: CGS – CIM Grid Working Schema – extending CIM to meet Grid needs

 

DMTF – CIM model and interface with the Open Group

-          Have a model to look at lifecycle of applications.  The Applications Working Group is looking at this.  That group has SAP, Oracle, etc….

-          This seems very valid to what we are doing.  Can we work with this group?  It seems very relevant.  Where do we liaise?

-          Can we make sure that this is a two-way.  There are weekly phone calls on Tuesday and Thursday.  Ask Andrea Westerinen.  Follow up with Karl Schopmeyer

 

CMM

-          You are talking about deploying services

-          WSRF is taking over a good bit of what WSDM is doing

-          What is the model of managing a live web service?

 

What about WSRF liaison?

 

 

 

This is a static archive of the previous Open Grid Forum Redmine content management system saved from host redmine.ogf.org file /dmsf_files/7524?download= at Fri, 04 Nov 2022 15:53:20 GMT