Date: August 5th - 6th 2004
Attendeee: David Alexander, Dave Stampf, Levente Hajdu, Jerome Lauret, Valeri Fine

General discussion
In this meeting, Levente first gave a presentation as per the current status of the SUMS project. The main points related to the u_JDL from the presentation follows
Input, output and, error streams

    1. Files (output files / files to be copied back from temp)
    2. Files catalog queries
Job name Resource Requirements
    1. Memory (min / max)

    2. Storage space (hard disk)
    3. CPU run time

    4. Scheduler adds more before dispatching (StarData)
Execution commands


    1. Simulated or real job

What the U-JDL does NOT define

The major point was that for the resource broker to make decisions, either the user have to specify rates or ranges for the different computing elements (memory, CPUtime, maybe clock time, IO,/SE etc ...). For example, specifying the time is an indication to the resource broker to chose the optimal queue / slot to submit to (used in SUMS). The question was raised on how much of the Glue CE (click on the hyperlink for a copy of the document) elements has to be implemented. We also spoke of the DataSets issues. Since this area is more developed in the AJDL, we thought to re-use some of its components. Documentation can be found here.
We also reviewed the available schemas as per the proposed proposal. David had prepared a JDL summary document. They all have different flavors but are really barely different apart from the DataGrid JDL allowing some limited depth job relation. We believed that if we could demonstrate that a schema transformation (XSLT) could be written for going from an existing to the AHJDL, the proof would be done that there are equivalent.
Dave Stampf suggested that instead of defining a schema, why not having access methods delivering a bunch of properties ?? It was unclear how this would fit within the tree structure approach needed for a truly flexible JDL.
We had some discussions on the WSDL. One issue which came to mind is, let's suppose that an attribute is missing in an implementation. What do we do ?? Use the validate() method and check if the client knows about it then ?? This drove the layer for method calls i.e. validate() is needed (then one can take action but at least, a warning can be brought back to the user from the UI stand point). The question if the request will be honored or not would be a service side decision (can use default values, ignore it, etc ...).
We diverged on the definition of tasks versus application lingo. Would task or ExecutableName/Arguments can cover everything ? Preparation of a “task” may be as complex as opening a port, installing something etc ... This is the heart of choosing the task concept in the initial STAR/JLab document. There, the idea is as follow:
  <macro>myMacro.C(“arg1”, 10.0)</macro>

while a a java application (main class, library jars) would present itself like this

  <mainclass class="MyJob" />
    <jar url="file:/~/jars/myjar.jar" />
    <jar url="" />
This is described in the RDL document which may be found on the PPDG Web site as PPDG-39. Application and task are separate because the idea was that a task can be shared by different applications.
WSDL thoughts
Possible methods would be “int submit(AbstractJobRequest job)” and “int estimate(int jobReference)” that return job reference integers; as well as “boolean execute(int jobReference).” Tracking could be added later in Phase II with a method such as “AbstractJobTracking getStatus(int jobReference)”.  Here the “AbstractJobRequest” object will have a one-to-one correspondence to the AJHDL in that all the information contained in an instance AJHDL file can be represented by an instance of the AbstractJobRequest object. 

public interface AbstractJobHandler {
int submit(AbstractJobRequest job);
int estimate(int jobReference);
boolean execute(int jobReference);
AbstractJobTracking getStatus(int jobReference);






A Super-Job


Prepares a CompositeJob


(Dave thinking it may be part of Create())


Estimates the length of the job


Submits the job request


%tage failure, completion


Stop(), Pause(), Cancel(), Resume(), Restart(), Requeue(), Suspend(), Kill()



Post meeting
Levente wrote a document with ideas he had. This was not discussed and left for the second meeting. The document is available here.