airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sachith Withana <swsach...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Workflow handling in the Application Catalog
Date Thu, 05 Jun 2014 07:59:02 GMT
So what you are suggesting is instead of saving a one big string, we should
shred it and store the nodes and their relationships separately so that it
can be queriable?

But XBaya and the Workflow Interpreter would still be using the string
right?


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 9:08 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 6:42 AM, Sachith Withana <swsachith@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Saminda Wijeratne <samindaw@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 1:15 AM, Sachith Withana <swsachith@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> When designing the Application Catalog for single Applications, I ran
>>>> into the issue of supporting workflows in the Application Catalog.
>>>>
>>>> Should we store the workflows ( workflow files) and keep ids, which
>>>> would be the handles for those workflows?
>>>>
>>> Thanks for bringing this up Sachith. In your opinion how do you think
>>> the workflow should be represented through the CPI? Workflow string or
>>> Thrift object with workflow metadata distinguished or Thrift object with
>>> all workflow data distinguished or any other way? I suppose we need to
>>> figure-out what should be queried in a workflow.
>>>
>>
>>
>> For the functional purposes I think it would be better to store the
>> workflow the way it is right now purely because we wouldn't want this to
>> affect the Workflow Interpreter behavior. But we can store meta-data about
>> the workflows to whatever the features we would want to support. Is there a
>> way to get the applications residing in a workflow without explicitly
>> passing it to get the meta-data?
>>
> Workflow nodes specifically does directly correspond to applications but
> service descriptors. The current workflow model object have functions to
> return these service descriptors.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> We would have to keep track of the applications that are in that
>>>> workflow so that the deployment related data would be reused.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly to the single Applications, the sharing and other features
>>>> would be available for the workflows as well.
>>>>
>>>> Is there any more details that I should be concerned about when
>>>> implementing the aforementioned approach?
>>>>
>>> IMO we can generalize workflows as a composite application with special
>>> properties. For example a workflow could simply be another deployment for
>>> an Application interface. wdyt?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. I'll send you the current design I have which generalize this.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> If we are planning to add searching capability with the workflows as
>>>> well, then we'd have to store the applications that are used in the
>>>> workflows, separately in the database as well instead of storing it as a
>>>> whole.
>>>>
>>> You mean node information here when you say "applications" right?
>>>
>>
>> yep. wdyt?
>>
> I think it brings us back to whether want to save the workflow as a single
> blob or as separate data for the graph. IMO what we send to the registry
> should be a complex workflow object and we should be able to query those
> objects from the registry based on their properties. How registry saves
> this complex object (as a single blob, metadata+single blob or
> metadata+graph data) is immaterial for the user of the registry/app catalog.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Any suggestions/comments on the matter is highly appreciated.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>  Sachith Withana
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Thanks,
>>  Sachith Withana
>>
>>
>


-- 
Thanks,
Sachith Withana

Mime
View raw message