Mailing-List: contact dev-help@airavata.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@airavata.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.2\))
Subject: Re: Enabling Workflow Support through Orchestrator
From: Suresh Marru <smarru@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANotcz7raOfBZx=STu_wKxocaWzPLGPSZVHptvaSwbzz-df33A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 19:58:04 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <297E7252-48E9-4A11-9FE7-B5068DB54D30@apache.org>
References: 
 <CANotcz7raOfBZx=STu_wKxocaWzPLGPSZVHptvaSwbzz-df33A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Airavata Dev <dev@airavata.apache.org>

Hi Saminda,

This looks like a good plan. The way I am interpreting Node and Task in =
experiment is Node is more like an Abstract object and Task is interface =
like object. More preciously, a gateway might request run experiment and =
Orchestrator might decide to use brute-force scheduling and create 3 =
tasks on three machines. If this is correct:

* I think we need to rename the Node to something more descriptive - =
(this has been inherited from workflow terminology which may not apply)

* I think the node in a workflow should also call the same abstract =
method (currently launch experiment).=20

Suresh

On 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.=20
>=20
>=20
> <wi-support-in-orchestrator.png>