Alessandra, I see nothing to be gained by (VO)boxing ourselves into a
corner. Taking an entrenched position against them at all costs is bad
tactics. I would rather take the position that the case hasn't been
made, please go away and think again. Everyone seems to be getting into
a frenzy before they have heard a rational case. The risk then is that
nothing called a VObox will ever be acceptable.
There will be more discussion at the workshop if it is required. Jeff';s
20mins will present our case too. Steve will give him your input.
My personal position (not a RAL one, and I wasn't in your discussion on
Tuesday) is that the VO box would not be a problem if:-
a) the VOs delivered rpms which were installed by local sysadmins just
like other components. I do not believe that VO agents should need to be
updated as frequently as the experimental software on WNs so why should
the SGM install it.
b) the reason for each agent was explained fully in advance and reviewed
by some independent group (perhaps under GDB)
c) some security review of the agents' functionality had been done. I do
not want to go to deep into this as there are currently no security
reviews of any other aspect of the middleware so it is unfair to impose
it here.
d) some testing had been done (by the deployment team or others) to
ensure there were no unwelcome side effects.
John
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Testbed Support for GridPP member institutes
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alessandra Forti
> Sent: 16 September 2005 18:18
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: VO Boxes - there will be a GridPP position on
> this discussion
>
> Dear John,
>
> I'm afraid I cannot share your optimism. Steve is right to
> call them "these things". I find the VO-boxes a technical
> abhorrence neither grid nor "classical" which takes the worst
> of both worlds. Of course I'm willing to be convinced of the
> opposite in the 30mins at the very end of the 1st day of the
> workshop that they gave themselves.
>
> cheers
> alessandra
>
>
|