Hi Suresh yes, the concrete end-to-end use case will be helpful in understanding the required goals which we are aiming for.
Regards Sanchit Aggarwa On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 7:58 PM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jun 28, 2013, at 10:13 AM, Sanchit Aggarwal < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi suresh > > > > It seems that the attachments are getting dropped. > > Yes, I raised an INFRA JIRA - > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-6471 which is pending to be > addressed. > > > However you can find the > > link of the architecture > > here<http://airavata.apache.org/architecture/workflow.html> > > . > > > > so the big picture is that,execution interface will validate the inputs > > for the composed workflow against a schema written in JSON and similar to > > the workflow execution > > context< > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/airavata/trunk/modules/commons/workflow-execution-context/src/main/resources/workflow_execution_context.xsd > > > > and > > then pass the set context to the interpreter? > > This is the basic step, once you get to this step, we need to complicate > with more real-world execution patterns and passing advance configurations. > > > Is there anything other than > > this which I am missing here? > > I would suggest to start with this and make progress and we can build from > there. > > > > > Also I see that there is the functionality to pause and resume the > workflow > > execution but for the advance configuration like adding the checkpoints > and > > functionality to resume from the failure point, is there any > implementation > > in the Gfac? > > There are some partial implementations but nothing concrete. But your > execution interface should take into consideration to enable the user to > these kind of capabilities. > > Will it be useful for you to have a concrete end-to-end use case instead > of envisioning this from a abstract sense? > > Cheers, > Suresh > > > > > > > Regards > > Sanchit Aggarwal > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Hi Sanchit, > >> > >> Can you please attach the architecture again? You are doing the right > >> thing in understating DynamicWorkflowRunner. But that gives you an > >> understanding on how the workflow inputs and context are used in > executing > >> the graph. But your project should focus on passing the information with > >> the right format and right level of details and not so much on how it > will > >> be used to execute. The key challenge I see for your work is to provide > >> complex interfaces so they are simple and easy to use for basic cases, > at > >> the same time provide flexibility and advanced configurations so power > >> users can override the default workflow execution behavior. > >> > >> I have not yet looked at the assembler you sent here, but I would not > >> worry about integrating with maven build to start with. Thats a worry > >> towards the end. But be cautious of any licenses right from the > beginning. > >> > >> Suresh > >> On Jun 23, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Sanchit Aggarwal < > [email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Suresh, > >>> > >>> Actually I was going through the attached architecture and got bit > >> confused. > >>> > >>> So its more like interface with a form for the composed workflow, > >> setting all the context information and the inputs and then invoking the > >> interpreter,(similar to the window displayed when the workflow is > executed > >> DynamicWorkflowRunnerWindow.java ) thus mimicking the xbaya. > >>> > >>> so do we also have to come up with the execution parser similar to the > >> xbaya interpreter (org.apache.airavata.xbaya.interpretor) or just > invoking > >> it using the JSON-XML bridge? > >>> > >>> Also what are your suggestions on using brunch which is an application > >> development assembler for HTML5 applications. Please find the link here. > >>> My only concern is how to integrate it with the present Airavata Maven > >> build? > >>> > >>> > >>> Regards > >>> Sanchit Aggarwal > >>> MS Research (Computer Science) > >>> Center for Visual Information Technology > >>> IIIT Hyderabad, Gachibowli > >>> Contact - 9581417330 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Hi Sanchit, > >>> > >>> This understanding counters your proposal altogether. Please read what > >> you have proposed, there is no mention on BPEL/DAG. The native XWF > format > >> will give you all the required inputs and your project is about > building an > >> interface to efficiently configure inputs, set the workflow execution > >> context and launch it to Workflow Interpreter. This execution interface > >> need not have an understanding of the underlying workflow language. It > just > >> needs to understand inputs, and provide intuitive interfaces to provide > >> inputs, specify resources to run the workflow. > >>> > >>> Suresh > >>> > >>> On Jun 1, 2013, at 10:18 AM, Sanchit Aggarwal < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Suresh > >>>> > >>>> My understanding on the workflow execution is that the Condor DAG/BPEL > >>>> is formed after the composition of the workflow which is than > >>>> interpreted by the axis2 based workflow interpreter web service. The > >>>> workflow execution context is used to specify the parameters for > >>>> scheduling , handling of inputs etc. This execution context is given > >>>> from the Xbaya GUI where the context header and other are taken a s a > >>>> input. Finally a Executable is formed which is then used for running > >>>> the job by GFac. > >>>> > >>>> So according to the above understanding, I guess The Execution > >>>> interface has to be developed which will export the composed workflow > >>>> to various workflow languages like BPEL/DAG etc. Please correct me If > >>>> I am wrong. > >>>> > >>>> Since not much has been discussed on the execution interface module of > >>>> the master project ,could we have more inputs on the same. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Regards > >>>> Sanchit Aggarwal > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:36 PM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >>>>> Sanchit, > >>>>> > >>>>> Yes lets start the discussion. Please take the lead and post your > >> understanding and ask specific questions. > >>>>> > >>>>> Suresh > >>>>> > >>>>> On May 31, 2013, at 7:32 AM, Sanchit Aggarwal < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Heshan/All > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I am covering workflow execution interface part of the master > project > >>>>>> in my sub-project.Since the current implementation of the workflow > >>>>>> execution context specification is expressed in xml schema > >> encompassed > >>>>>> within the workflow wsdl it has to be re-framed. > >>>>>> Can we all start discussing here so to get a better understanding of > >>>>>> workflow execution context and its representation? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Regards > >>>>>> Sanchit Aggarwal > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >
