Comments on AGN doc

Rick Stevens stevens at mcs.anl.gov
Fri Aug 9 15:53:41 CDT 2002


We probably need an overall AG architecture document that frames everything 
and creates the high-level concepts
and definitions.  Given that we can decide if we should have separate 
documents for VV vs nodes vs network services etc. or if we should roll the 
whole thing up in to a single AG architecture document. In any case we need 
to have
all the documents share clear and consistent terminology.

We could then create dedicated specifications for each of the components 
from which groups can code too.



At 03:06 PM 8/9/2002 -0500, Justin Binns wrote:
>My comments included - mostly grammatical.
>
>My main issue at this point is that I feel the division between these two
>conceptual spaces (AGN and VV) are either too distinct, or not distinct
>enough.  The VV architecture, as I understand it, is designed to
>explicitly support things like what the AGN document calls 'application
>streams', but in a wholly different way than the AGN document describes.
>At the same time, without such support in the VV, I'm not really sure what
>a VV is.  We should either draw a clear line around what the AGN does vs.
>what the VV does, then define the interfaces and (if there are any)
>exceptions in a very clear way, or decide that they're all different
>aspects to one big oval and resolve the design differences inherent here.
>I'm leaning towards making them two different boxes, in which case the
>application stream stuff, at a minimum, and possibly the media stream
>stuff becomes part of the VV box (otherwise, what is a VV?), while the
>control and node-specific organizational stuff stays in the AGN box.
>
>Justin




More information about the ag-dev mailing list