Status of the Async. Storage Meetings

[James R. Griffin III]

Dear Randall,

I posed some general questions regarding the status of future Asynchronous Storage meetings over the #fcrepo IRC channel, and I was advised to directly contact you regarding the date for the next possible meeting.

I've also noted that, within the notes for the meeting held on 11/11/15 (https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/2015-11-11+-+Asynchronous+Storage+Meeting), there seemed to be some suggestion that Async. discussions be merged into the API-X meetings.  Is this still desired (or, has this already been undertaken)?

Thank you,

James

--

James R. Griffin III
Digital Library Developer
Digital Scholarship Services
111C Technical Services
David B. Skillman Library
Lafayette College
Easton, PA 18042

[James R. Griffin III]

Dear Randall,

Hi, thanks for reaching out. First off, I'm just now getting my mind back into this topic this year, as I was out for a period of time at the end of last year for medical purposes and have had a bit of a hard time in recovery and getting back on track. That is to say, I'm uncomfortably aware that I have dropped the ball big time on my involvement with Fedora 4 and Asynchronous Storage.  It’s unfortunately been kind of the least of my worries.

I'm extremely sorry to hear this.  I hope that all is improving, and completely understand how progress with Asynchronous Storage exchanges was delayed.

We signed up for being a stakeholder for that use case in API-X but all we’ve been able to do so far is hangout on the last couple of calls since the first of the year.

[...]

At the moment we don’t see anything concrete in API-X yet that we can use as a pattern or actual code so we’ve just been tinkering with how to make our local use cases work in the meantime

Not having attended any of the API-X meetings held in the past, I greatly appreciate these points of clarification.

I wonder if that could be helped along by me not having to specifically be the point person to arrange and conduct yet another separate set of meetings and efforts, like maybe it could just be a less formal interest group working within the API-X group.  So I guess my feeling to get it back on track is to plan out specific stakeholder activity for AS but alongside API-X vs running parallel with it.

Understood, this certainly seems to be a reasonable approach to someone entirely new to this topic.

My interest in reaching out has been the well-publicized planned removal of Infinispan caching from Modeshape 5.  In response to this, from within our own institution, I'm hoping to gain some general sense of precisely where we may look to integrate asynchronous storage into (the current reference implementation of) the Fedora application environment.  Unfortunately, our use cases are still higher-level in scope, and hence, I'm afraid that I can do little to facilitate this process myself.

That being stated, I would be eager to hear more from others attending the next API-X meeting (02/19/16), and will propose an agenda item in response to this exchange.

Thank you very much for having contributed so substantially to these meetings, and for providing this much needed guidance.

Sincerely,

James

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Floyd, Randall Dean <rdf...@indiana.edu> wrote:

James,

 

Hi, thanks for reaching out. First off, I'm just now getting my mind back into this topic this year, as I was out for a period of time at the end of last year for medical purposes and have had a bit of a hard time in recovery and getting back on track. That is to say, I'm uncomfortably aware that I have dropped the ball big time on my involvement with Fedora 4 and Asynchronous Storage.  It’s unfortunately been kind of the least of my worries.

 

I do feel strongly that there is a strong overlap with API-X and that possibly F4 AS is nothing more than a strong use case for API-X. We signed up for being a stakeholder for that use case in API-X but all we’ve been able to do so far is hangout on the last couple of calls since the first of the year.  Here at IU we have begun our own local experiments using nothing but Camel in conjunction with redirect nodes in Fedora 4 as a proof of concept for our own local asynchronous use cases. At the moment we don’t see anything concrete in API-X yet that we can use as a pattern or actual code so we’ve just been tinkering with how to make our local use cases work in the meantime, but then I would hope that we could then replicate that using API-X when stuff starts to emerge from that.

 

From where I sit with my current work and life challenges I certainly feel bad that there’s no traction on F4 AS but I wonder if that could be helped along by me not having to specifically be the point person to arrange and conduct yet another separate set of meetings and efforts, like maybe it could just be a less formal interest group working within the API-X group.  So I guess my feeling to get it back on track is to plan out specific stakeholder activity for AS but alongside API-X vs running parallel with it.

[Andrew Woods]

Hello James and Randall,

Thanks for raising the topic of Aynchronous Storage (AS). I have added the topic to next week's API-X agenda with the hope of establishing agreement on how best to move AS forward within the framework and effort of API-X.

https://wiki.duraspace.org/display/FF/2016-02-19+Fedora+API+Extensions+Meeting

Regards,

Andrew

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fedora Tech" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fedora-tech...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to fedor...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fedora-tech.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.