Hi Suresh, I agree with Amila, we should not get any implementation details into > schemas. The Schemas are a contract between user and the system. Its within > the system how it executes the task user wants to accomplish. These schemas > are completely agnostic to how Airavata talks to a system. For instance, > user should be able to say, I want to run a job on Amazon and the host > description has EC2 end points. But we should not at that level > describe/tag classes on how Airavata talks to EC2. >
I get your point. Makes sense. Then the other option would be to have provider implementation details defined in a configuration file (airavata.xml?). Thanks, Danushka
