airavata-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Amila Jayasekara <thejaka.am...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Improvements to Experiment input data model in order to support Gaussian application
Date Tue, 09 Dec 2014 03:17:02 GMT
Hi Chathuri,

I do not know anything about Gaussian. So its kind of hard for me to
understand what exactly is the meaning of the structures you introduced and
why you exactly need those structures.

A more important question is how to come up with a more abstract and
generic thrift IDLS so that you dont need to change it every time we add a
new application. Going through many example applications is certainly a
good way to understand broad requirements and helps to abstract out many
features.

Thanks
-Thejaka

On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Chathuri Wimalasena <kamalasini@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi Devs,
>
> We are trying to add Gaussian application using airavata-appcatalog. While
> doing that, we face some limitations of the current design.
>
> In Gaussian there are several input files, some input files should used
> when the job run command is generated, but some does not.  Those which are
> not involved with job run command also need to be staged to working
> directory. Such flags are not supported in current design.
>
> Another interesting feature that in Gaussian is, in input file, we can
> specify the values for memory, cpu like options. If input file includes
> those parameters, we need to give priority to those values instead of the
> values specified in the request.
>
> To support these features, we need to slightly modify our thrift IDLS,
> specially to InputDataObjectType struct.
>
> Current struct is below.
>
> struct InputDataObjectType {
>     1: required string name,
>     2: optional string value,
>     3: optional DataType type,
>     4: optional string applicationArgument,
>     5: optional bool standardInput = 0,
>     6: optional string userFriendlyDescription,
>     7: optional string metaData
> }
>
> In order to support 1st requirement, we introduce 2 enums.
>
> enum InputValidityType{
> REQUIRED,
> OPTIONAL
> }
>
> enum CommandLineType{
> INCLUSIVE,
> EXCLUSIVE
> }
>
> Please excuse me for names. You are welcome to suggest better names.
>
> To support 2nd requirement, we change metaData field to a map with another
> enum where we define all the metadata types that can have.
>
> enum InputMetadataType {
>     MEMORY,
>     CPU
> }
>
> So the new InputDataObjectType would be as below.
>
> struct InputDataObjectType {
>     1: required string name,
>     2: optional string value,
>     3: optional DataType type,
>     4: optional string applicationArgument,
>     5: optional bool standardInput = 0,
>     6: optional string userFriendlyDescription,
>   *  7: optional map<InputMetadataType, string> metaData,*
> *    8: optional InputValidityType inputValid;*
> *    9: optional CommandLineType addedToCommandLine;*
> *    10: optional bool dataStaged = 0;*
> }
>
> Suggestions are welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> Chathuri
>
>

Mime
View raw message