Subject:
CCPE Portal C536
From:
Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Date:
Tue, 09 Oct 2001 15:24:13 -0400
To:
gcf@indiana.edu
CC:
moore@cs.utk.edu
X-UIDL:
56b2cd5fb70b0000
X-Mozilla-Status:
0001
X-Mozilla-Status2:
00000000
Received:
by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (mbox gcfpc) (with Cubic Circle's cucipop (v1.31 1998/05/13) Sun Oct 14 18:09:09 2001)
X-From_:
fox@mailer.csit.fsu.edu Sun Oct 14 18:07:40 2001
Return-Path:
<fox@mailer.csit.fsu.edu>
Delivered-To:
gcfpc@csit.fsu.edu
Received:
from dirac.csit.fsu.edu (dirac.csit.fsu.edu [144.174.128.44]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E5423A0A for <gcfpc@csit.fsu.edu>; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:07:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received:
from localhost by dirac.csit.fsu.edu (AIX4.2/UCB 8.7) id SAA92358; Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:07:34 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id:
<200110142207.SAA92358@dirac.csit.fsu.edu>
Delivered-To:
fox@csit.fsu.edu
Received:
from fins.uits.indiana.edu (fins.uits.indiana.edu [129.79.6.185]) by mailer.csit.fsu.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0324B23A0E for <fox@csit.fsu.edu>; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:24:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received:
from astro.cs.utk.edu (astro.cs.utk.edu [160.36.58.43]) by fins.uits.indiana.edu (8.10.1/8.10.1/IUPO) with ESMTP id f99JOFg10818 for <gcf@indiana.edu>; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 14:24:15 -0500 (EST)
Received:
from astro.cs.utk.edu (LOCALHOST [127.0.0.1]) by astro.cs.utk.edu (cf 8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA01510; Tue, 9 Oct 2001 15:24:13 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id:
<200110091924.PAA01510@astro.cs.utk.edu>
X-URI:
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~moore/
X-PGP-Key:
2F07A741 ; 78 15 8E 8B C0 06 5D D1 BC 08 05 7F 42 81 7E 90
Sender:
moore@cs.utk.edu
Resent-To:
Geoffrey Fox <gcfpc@csit.fsu.edu>
Resent-Date:
Sun, 14 Oct 2001 18:07:19 -0400
Resent-From:
Geoffrey Fox <fox@mailer.csit.fsu.edu>

C. paper and referee metadata

Paper Number: C536
Date: 9 October 2001
Paper Title: Features of the Java Commodity Grid Kit
Authors: Gregor von Laszewski, Jarek Gawor, Peter Lane, Neill Rehn, Mike Russell
Referee: Keith Moore
Address: moore@cs.utk.edu

D. Recommendations

publish as is, unless length is a consideration

E. Referee Comments (for editor only)

none

F. Referee Comments (for author and editor)

The paper is fairly lengthy for what it describes.  The contribution that
the paper describes is obviously useful (if one accepts Globus as useful)
and needs little justification, but much of the paper seems to be justification
for the effort.  And despite the length of the paper there is fairly little 
technical detail about the contribution, and little information about what 
was learned as a result of this effort. The work is worth reporting, but 
could be adequately reported in fewer pages.

I had difficulty understanding what the figures were attempting to illustrate.

G. Presentation Changes

page 3, possible typo: "community has developed protocols some..."
should perhaps be "community has developed some protocols" ?

the caption for Figure 4 was on a different page than the figure.

.