airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Saminda Wijeratne <samin...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Enabling Workflow Support through Orchestrator
Date Tue, 24 Jun 2014 15:31:27 GMT
hi Marlon,

You understanding of the choices is correct.

Choice 2: Once in the implementation we figure-out from the id whether its
a workflow or an application the "ExecType" is automatically inferred
without having to user provide it like in Choice 1.

Choice 4: I'm a little hesitant to introduce a new structure because other
than the fact that we need to specify either the workflow template id or
the application id everything else remains the same under the current data
model. i.e. users do not need to query twice to get experiment data or
summary data of workflows and applications. Ideally it would be nice if we
can have ApplicationExperiment and WorkflowExperiment which extends
Experiment. But thrift doesn't support inheritance. wdyt?




On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org> wrote:

> This is a good summary. I am inclined on Choice 3. The experiment data
> structure is similar for both single application and workflows, but the API
> calls are explicit. From a user stand point, both application and workflows
> have inputs, outputs and QoS configurations. But the level of details
> exposed in workflows is more granular. So the data structure can be re-used.
>
> I also worry about using the magic parameters, the more we stay away from
> XOR like situations, it may be unambiguous.
>
> Suresh
>
> On Jun 24, 2014, at 9:36 AM, Marlon Pierce <marpierc@iu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hi Saminda--
> >
> > Can you say more about why you have three options and what the tradeoffs
> are?  Below is my understanding.
> >
> > * Choice 2: one launch method and one executableId for both workflows
> and single applications, so they are treated in the API as fundamentally
> the same. Beautiful uniformity but may be more contorted to implement.  I
> like this as an API call but implementing it may have unintended
> consequences.
> >
> > * Choice 1: still has a universal launch method and execID but makes the
> execution type explicit with ExecType.  This makes the API user responsible
> for making this choice.  Increases the chance that the API user will make a
> mistake.  I don't like it for that reason.
> >
> > * Choice 3: different methods for launching single apps and workflows,
> but the Experiment structure is the same as Choice 2. Not as beautiful as
> Choice 2 but may have a cleaner implementation. API user probably knows
> they need a workflow, but what happens if they send an Experiment object of
> the wrong type to one of the methods (workflow Experiment to
> launchApplication)?
> >
> > * Choice 4 (not shown): like Choice 3 but with WorkflowExperiment struct
> for workflows and launchWorkflow(WorkflowExperiment).
> >
> >
> > I like Choice 2 (keep the API simple) and then Choice 4 (if you can't
> make it simple, make it unambiguous).  Choice 2 is my least favorite (API
> user must supply the right magic parameter).
> >
> >
> > Marlon
> >
> >
> >
> > On 6/23/14, 7:56 PM, Saminda Wijeratne wrote:
> >> In order to distinguish single application vs workflow execution in the
> API
> >> we thought of few choices (trivial parameters not shown here and
> proposed
> >> parameter/property names not well thought out yet).
> >>
> >> *Choice 1*
> >> launchExperiment(Experiment experiment)
> >> struct Experiment{
> >>    ...
> >>    string executableId // application id for single app or workflow
> >> template id for workflow
> >>    ExecType type // SINGLE_APP/WORKFLOW
> >>    ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> *Choice 2*
> >> launchExperiment(Experiment experiment)
> >> struct Experiment{
> >>    ...
> >>    string executableId // unique id for application id for single app or
> >> workflow template id for workflow
> >>    ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> *Choice 3*
> >> launchApplication(Experiment experiment)
> >> launchWorkflow(Experiment experiment)
> >>
> >> launchExperiment(Experiment experiment)
> >> struct Experiment{
> >>    ...
> >>    string executableId // application id for single app or workflow
> >> template id for workflow
> >>    ...
> >> }
> >>
> >> Any thoughts?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> With a few updates to the Orchestrator CPI we are carrying ahead the
> >>> updating the workflow interpreter to support workflow executions in
> >>> Airavata for 0.13 release as the attached diagram.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> [image: Inline image 1]
>
>

Mime
View raw message