+1 for the review. I am good with Monday. What about 1PM EST? Raminder On Dec 7, 2012, at 2:45 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Amila Jayasekara > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Will be great if we can convert these to integration tests. >> > Yes ! Lets do that ! > > Lahiru > >> >> Thanks >> Amila >> >> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> What I am currently doing is writing more sample to put in to >>> airavata-client distribution. I am sure I wil find improvements and I >> will >>> post on the list. >>> >>> >>> My plan is to use atleast 50% of the code in airavata-api and build up >> most >>> of the possible usecases. >>> >>> Regards >>> Lahiru >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:14 PM, Suresh Marru <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Lahiru, >>>> >>>> I will repeat my concerns at the API review too. But in short, its >> never a >>>> good idea to use Names as the primary identifiers. I think we should go >>>> through these for all of provenance data (experiments, projects, and so >> on) >>>> and workflows (templates, application descriptions and so on) and ensure >>>> the system exchanges ID's as handles with clients. And Clients should >>>> facilitate through API a mechanism for Names and Descriptions. And these >>>> names and descriptions should be for optional and for human readability >>>> only. The API's and services would only talk referencing to the server >>>> generated unique ids. Here we have to relax the restriction that ID >> should >>>> contain names for easy debugging, i understand thats a convenience but >> we >>>> can provide that convenience with good co-relatation mechanisms and >>>> administrative dashboards. >>>> >>>> Suresh >>>> >>>> On Dec 7, 2012, at 9:56 AM, Lahiru Gunathilake <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> FYI, We are saving the workflow with the name in the workflow >> (workflow >>>>> file has an element called workflowName). I will put some comments on >> the >>>>> API and we should put some note on API docs too. >>>>> >>>>> Regards >>>>> Lahiru >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Lahiru Gunathilake <[email protected] >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Devs, >>>>>> >>>>>> While I was working on some samples I realize saveWorkflow methods >> are >>>> not >>>>>> allowing users to give their own worklfow name or atleast its not >>>> returning >>>>>> workflow saved names. >>>>>> >>>>>> When we use the API we need to have the workflow name which got >> saved in >>>>>> to registry. >>>>>> >>>>>> I think we should return workflow name as the return value of >>>> saveWorkflow >>>>>> methods and we need to provide another method to give user given >>>> workflow >>>>>> name to be provided. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please correct me if I am wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards >>>>>> Lahiru >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> System Analyst Programmer >>>>>> PTI Lab >>>>>> Indiana University >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> System Analyst Programmer >>>>> PTI Lab >>>>> Indiana University >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> System Analyst Programmer >>> PTI Lab >>> Indiana University >> > > > > -- > System Analyst Programmer > PTI Lab > Indiana University
