FW: AG version on conference node

[Ivan R. Judson]

>From the SCGLobal committee list; shawn is giving us kudos for our
responsiveness. This is a good thing.

--Ivan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-scg03-l at bu.edu [mailto:owner-scg03-l at bu.edu] On 
> Behalf Of Shawn Davis
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 3:30 PM
> To: Jim Miller; Jennifer Teig von Hoffman; scg03-l
> Subject: RE: AG version on conference node
> 
> 
> I've been impressed by ANL with regards to their promptness 
> in getting bugs 
> fixed.  I think that we  will probably be able to use AG 2.0. 
> Now about allowing 1.x clients...  if we allow both, we have to teach 
> both.  We will probably end up being support staff for all 
> participating 
> sites whether we like it or not.  So it will make it easier 
> on us if we 
> force everyone to use one version.
> The other thing that comes to mind is the possibility of 
> other services 
> being used with the 2.0 architecture.  One that may likely be 
> used is a 
> DPPT service that integrates into the AG 2.0 architecture.  
> If we do end up 
> utilizing AG 2.0 Services other than just audio and video, 
> there will be 
> compatibility issues between 1.x and 2.0 folks.
> -Shawn
> 
> At 02:46 PM 2/26/2003, Jim Miller wrote:
> >I don't see why we can't plan on supporting 2.0.  But, do we 
> allow for 
> >1.0 connectivity by using a static ip venue (like the argonne 
> >transitional
> >venue) or do we require all sites to be 2.0?
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: owner-scg03-l at bu.edu [mailto:owner-scg03-l at bu.edu]On Behalf Of 
> >Jennifer Teig von Hoffman
> >Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 2:27 PM
> >To: scg03-l
> >Subject: Re: AG version on conference node
> >
> >
> >Hi again,
> >
> >I'd really like to get your input on this. At the retreat in April, 
> >we're certainly going to be asked whether we'll be able to 
> support 2.0 
> >on the conference node. If we're not yet ready to make that 
> decision, 
> >what issues do we still need to get resolved?
> >
> >- Jennifer
> >
> >Jennifer Teig von Hoffman wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everybody,
> > >
> > > Although we're not planning to finalize our full selection of 
> > > software until July 7, I realized last night on the bus ride home 
> > > that we really should decide on the core software we'll 
> be running 
> > > on the Phoenix conference node before the web site opens for 
> > > submissions. After all, if somebody would like to propose 
> a demo of 
> > > a super-cool Grid service running over the AG, they'll 
> need to know 
> > > whether we can support AG 2.0 at the conference node. And I think 
> > > we'd like to be able to do that, and that we have enough 
> information 
> > > now about 2.0 to move towards making this decision, 
> especially now 
> > > that we know that AG 1.x and 2.x nodes will be able to 
> interact in a 
> > > given venue (albeit with 2.x nodes having access to more 
> features).
> > >
> > > Also, the AG retreat (April 15 and 16) will focus strongly on the 
> > > 2.0 release, and I think we'd like to be able to say at 
> the retreat 
> > > that we'll be using AG 2.x on our conference node, and encourage 
> > > others to migrate to 2.x as well. And with the 2.0 
> release scheduled 
> > > for April 15, we'll have plenty of time to work with it 
> before test 
> > > cruises begin (perhaps even enough time for 2.1 to be released).
> > >
> > > So . . . I'd like to open the floor for discussion, so to 
> speak. I 
> > > propose that we plan to run AG 2.x on the conference node in 
> > > Phoneix. Discussion, please?
> > >
> > > - Jennifer
> > >
> 
>