Martin Guetlein wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Nina Jeliazkova <nina at acad.bg> wrote:
>
>   
>> Hi Martin, All,
>>
>> The reason of asking about 200/202 codes is that in ToxPredict, I would
>> prefer not to read entire content of the resultURI, in order to
>> recognise if is a Task, or if it is a dataset, or anything else.
>>
>>     
>
> That's actually what I am doing at the moment: Parsing the results of puts
> and posts (rdf as well as text/uri-list). If its a task, I'll wait for it.
> I do not see how to avoid this with the current API.
>   
Then we need some new inventions.
> We could agree on not returning tasks as a resultURI of other tasks. In this
> case Tobias service would have to wait for Ambits task. 
This is an option -actually not much different than wrapping descriptor
calculation within a model . One drawback is of course waiting will not
be really efficient use for the model services.
> I do not like task
> wrapping, though.
>   
Me too, harder to troubleshoot.

This is why I liked the redirect as before ... it clearly tells you the
task is not completed, but handled by some other service, and is
consistent with HTTP interpretation.
> Another way of handling it could be to set the state to "Completed" but
> leave the status to 202, in case of returning another task as resultURI. But
> that's not a clean solution either.
>
> We probably have to change the API, maybe introduce 206 (Partial Content) in
> case the task result is another task?
>   
Partial content has a slightly different meaning in HTTP;  so I would
not vote for it.  Perhaps we could find other suitable error code?

An RDF solution will be to set resultURI point to ot:Task object, rather
than string, in case the result is a task. This is a small update, but
will still leave the text/uri-list interpretation open.

Regards,
Nina
> Best regards,
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>   
>> Is there any /prefered way to achieve this in the current TaskAPI ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Nina
>>
>> Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
>>     
>>> Martin Guetlein wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM, Tobias Girschick <
>>>> tobias.girschick at in.tum.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 11:52 +0300, Nina Jeliazkova wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Hello Tobias,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tobias Girschick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> Hello All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> we removed the redirect from the TUM task services as suggested by
>>>>>>> Martin. All Tasks now return the resulting URI and status code 200 on
>>>>>>> finishing. No automatic redirects anymore.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> Just to clarify - if a model completes execution and posts the result
>>>>>> dataset to the dataset service, what will be returned - 200 or 202 ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Now I return 200. How are other groups handling this, e.g. Pantelis?
>>>>> Martin?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> Hello Tobias, Nina,
>>>>
>>>> I would expect 202 as long as the task is running,
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>       
>>>> 202 as soon as the task
>>>> is finished.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I guess you mean 200.
>>>
>>>       
>>>>  The resultURI of the task maybe another task tough.
>>>>
>>>> So in Tobias Case:
>>>> * model building returns tum-task with 202 while the model is running
>>>> * model finishes: the results are posted to ambits dataset service, the
>>>> model service receives an ambit task
>>>> * tum-task is set to 200, resultURI of tum-task is set to ambit-task
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Then how do you distinguish between resultURI pointing to another task
>>> and final result (a dataset, anythig else),  if both have 200 code ?
>>> This can be done if reading RDF representation, but not text/uri-list.
>>>
>>> Does it mean we should drop uri-list ?
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Nina
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Best regards,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Nina told me that returning 200 will cause Problems with ToxPredict (at
>>>>> the moment). What exactly is expected by the validation services?
>>>>>
>>>>> We definitely need a uniform solution here. What do other developers
>>>>> think? I have no problem returning 202 on completion (calculation
>>>>> completion) if the complete job is still not done (e.g. AMBIT upload
>>>>> initiated by my service).
>>>>>
>>>>> regards,
>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>> Nina
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>>>> @Martin: Could you check if everything works fine now with the
>>>>>>> validation services?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> regards,
>>>>>>> Tobias + Fabian
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>               
>>>>> --
>>>>> Dipl.-Bioinf. Tobias Girschick
>>>>>
>>>>> Technische Universität München
>>>>> Institut für Informatik
>>>>> Lehrstuhl I12 - Bioinformatik
>>>>> Bolzmannstr. 3
>>>>> 85748 Garching b. München, Germany
>>>>>
>>>>> Room: MI 01.09.042
>>>>> Phone: +49 (89) 289-18002
>>>>> Email: tobias.girschick at in.tum.de
>>>>> Web: http://wwwkramer.in.tum.de/girschick
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Development mailing list
>>>>> Development at opentox.org
>>>>> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Development mailing list
>>> Development at opentox.org
>>> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>>>
>>>       
>> _______________________________________________
>> Development mailing list
>> Development at opentox.org
>> http://www.opentox.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>