[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Ian Foster's and Jeffrey Frey's responses to Eric's message
As per Ian Foster's request I am forwarding their responses to Eric's message posted to the OGSI mailing list. -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name (now blogging)
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Ian Foster" <foster@mcs.anl.gov>
- To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>,"Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
- Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 22:34:16 -0000
Eric: We (the WSRF authors) are very familiar with WS-Context and certainly agree that it has an important role to play. However, we also believe that there are important situations in which stateful resources need to be identified and managed as first-class entities: thus WS-Resource Framework. Thus the enthusiastic response we are seeing to the proposal from the IBM and HP Web services teams, as well as many others. Ian. At 10:06 PM 1/22/2004 +0000, Savas Parastatidis wrote: Dear Eric, I agree with your comments. In fact, back in August 2003 we used WS-Context as an example of how stateful interactions and/or distributed units of work could be modelled. This was part of our proposals for a WSA-friendly framework for building Grid applications (http://www.neresc.ac.uk/ws-gaf). Regards, -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:28 PM To: Mark Little; Savas Parastatidis; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-caf] WS-Resource Framework I have the general impression of the OGSA specs as the equivalence of CORBA. On the topic of the WS-Resource Framework in particular, I've looked through the specs and I think WS-Context could have been used, and it's unfortunate it wasn't. I suppose the Resource Framework effort grew out of the Grid work however so it has a completely independent origin. I also agree that I can't see a practical difference between context management in transactions and the context management defined for the Resource Framework. It would be nice to try to converge these things at some point and in some organization - is that OASIS? _______________________________________________________________ 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 <http://www.globus.org/>--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
- From: "Jeffrey Frey" <jafrey@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Ian Foster" <foster@mcs.anl.gov>
- Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 18:11:05 -0000
I agree with Ian. There is a subtle but important distinction. Context, as referred to in WS-Context, is explicitly declared and meant to facilitate an interoperable understanding between the client and the service. For example, a transactional unit of work is something that can be established by the client and sent to the service in a well known context that accompanies the message to the web service. The same is true for contexts that represent security function, etc. This is not the same as what we have introduced with the WS-Resource. There is no need to declare the WS-Resource context for interoperability reasons. The WS-Resource "context" is not produced by the client. It is produced and consumed by the service. It is carried in the EPR as an opaque construct to the client. There is no need for the client to interpret or inspect the contents of the reference properties. In fact, there is no additional "context" handler required at all on the client side of the interaction other than what is already generically specified in the WS-Addressing specification. So, while I can understand that this appears to be the same at an abstract level of understanding, we did not intend the identity of the resource as it is treated in the EPR to be interpreted as "context" in the same way other usage context is produced and consumed across the web service interaction with the client. In addition, while we know some have an aversion to the treatment of the stateful resource as a "first class" addressable entity or as the implied target of the interaction from the client., some do not. And if your view is that the resource is the "target" of the message interchange from the client the service, our view is that it should be treated as distinct from other execution contexts which exist not for the purpose of identifying the target of the message exchange, but to provide additional control over how the target of the message exchange is to be treated. WS-Context should be used to facilitate the contextual usage of the target of the message, not the target of the message itself. Jeffrey Frey IBM Distinguished Engineer OnDemand System Architecture and Design Phone: 845-435-3067 Tie: 8-295-3067 Cell: 914-456-6556 Notes: Jeffrey Frey/Poughkeepsie/IBM@IBMUS Internet: jafrey@us.ibm.com |---------+----------------------------> | | Ian Foster | | | <foster@mcs.anl.g| | | ov> | | | Sent by: | | | owner-ogsi-wg@gri| | | dforum.org | | | | | | | | | 01/22/2004 05:34 | | | PM | | | | |---------+----------------------------> >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | | | To: "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com> | | cc: <ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>, <ogsi-wg@gridforum.org> | | Subject: Re: [ogsi-wg] RE: [ws-caf] WS-Resource Framework | | | >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| Eric: We (the WSRF authors) are very familiar with WS-Context and certainly agree that it has an important role to play. However, we also believe that there are important situations in which stateful resources need to be identified and managed as first-class entities: thus WS-Resource Framework. Thus the enthusiastic response we are seeing to the proposal from the IBM and HP Web services teams, as well as many others. Ian. At 10:06 PM 1/22/2004 +0000, Savas Parastatidis wrote: Dear Eric, I agree with your comments. In fact, back in August 2003 we used WS-Context as an example of how stateful interactions and/or distributed units of work could be modelled. This was part of our proposals for a WSA-friendly framework for building Grid applications (http://www.neresc.ac.uk/ws-gaf). Regards, -- Savas Parastatidis http://savas.parastatidis.name From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:28 PM To: Mark Little; Savas Parastatidis; ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-caf] WS-Resource Framework I have the general impression of the OGSA specs as the equivalence of CORBA. On the topic of the WS-Resource Framework in particular, I've looked through the specs and I think WS-Context could have been used, and it's unfortunate it wasn't. I suppose the Resource Framework effort grew out of the Grid work however so it has a completely independent origin. I also agree that I can't see a practical difference between context management in transactions and the context management defined for the Resource Framework. It would be nice to try to converge these things at some point and in some organization - is that OASIS? _______________________________________________________________ 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--- End Message ---
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]