Hi,

I manged to get it to work by having the host description typed defined in
the gfac-config.xml.

Still the issue is that a gateway developer who is willing to write his own
provider for some purpose   would end up modifying the schema details,
regenerating source in the commons package, etc, etc. I wonder why the
gfac-schema is in the commons rather than in the gfac core.

Anyway if there is a requirement to have a light-weight SDK for gateway
developers, we could consider restructuring the source that would also
streamline writing custom providers, etc,

Just my 2 cents.

Thanks,
Danushka


On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Danushka Menikkumbura <
[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi Lahiru,
>
> Yes. That is what I meant. Can we incorporate HostDescriptionType with it?
>
> Thanks,
> Danushka
>
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Lahiru Gunathilake <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> Hi Danushka,
>>
>> We already have a provider configuration file (gfac-config.xml) if this is
>> what you meant. Please have a look in to LocalProviderTest to see how it
>> works.
>>
>> Regards
>> Lahiru
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Danushka Menikkumbura <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Suresh,
>> >
>> > I agree with Amila, we should not get any implementation details into
>> > > schemas. The Schemas are a contract between user and the system. Its
>> > within
>> > > the system how it executes the task user wants to accomplish. These
>> > schemas
>> > > are completely agnostic to how Airavata talks to a system. For
>> instance,
>> > > user should be able to say, I want to run a job on Amazon and the host
>> > > description has EC2 end points. But we should not at that level
>> > > describe/tag classes on how Airavata talks to EC2.
>> > >
>> >
>> > I get your point. Makes sense.
>> >
>> > Then the other option would be to have provider implementation details
>> > defined in a configuration file (airavata.xml?).
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Danushka
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> System Analyst Programmer
>> PTI Lab
>> Indiana University
>>
>
>

Reply via email to