Referee 1 *******************************************

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.

Referee 2 *******************************************


E: Referee Comments (For Author and Editor)  
This paper reports on the features of a Java Commodity Grid Kit. The Java CoG Kit provides
middleware for accessing Grid functionality from the Java framework.

On page one you state: "The Globus project provides a small set of useful services,
including authentication, remote access to resources, and information services to discover
and query such remote resource. Unfortunately, these services may not be compatible with the
commodity technologies used for application development by the software engineers and
scientists." It would be helpful to the readers if you were more explicit on why these are
not compatible.

F: Presentation Changes:
The paper is a bit long. Perhaps remove some of the details of Globus and just refer to the
information.


Referee 3 *******************************************

General comments:
The paper needs significant reorganization and re-edits. The paper has a lot of
abbreviations/acronyms. I had the impression that there was one too many bulleted/numbered
lists. At certain places the paper just turns into a javadoc of package descriptions. If
possible, the authors should work on presenting the information in an alternate scheme. The
work seems to be good, but substantial re-writes needs to be put in to salvage the paper.
The paper seems to have been done in a hurry and the presentation of the work is poor.

Overall the paper was a bad read.
 
Corrections/Questions
1)	Misplaced comma page 3, line 7. Should have been protocols, some services ....... I think.
2)	Page 5: Should be Specifically by leveraging 
3)	When the authors refer to IDE's is it Integrated Development environments or interface
development environment. The former is the most common usuage.
4)	Page 9 before the second enumeration list. It should be "Projects currently using ......"
5)	In section 3, instead of using he for gender neutrality using his/her or their seems to
be a better option.
6)	In section 3, servicerelated needs to have a space in between. Also please check this
line to clarify content. Is it "implementations application portal. Also "Grid Services"
appear twice in the enumeration.
7)	Page12: Captions to a figure should appear below the figure.
8)	Last line on page 12 should be re-worded. "by the community" appears twice.
Comprehension is not easy.
9)	Page 14. "Additionally, we have will provide" needs to be reworded.
10)	The second enumeration on Page 14. Sentences should start with the upper case.
11)	Page 14: The last line above table1 needs to be fixed for clarity.
12)	Page15: Globus GSI, reference to abbreviation without the complete form first.
13)	Page 18: Cog should be CoG (please fix similar such repetitions elsewhere.
14)	Page 18: "one s" should be "one's"
15)	Page 18: "Comannd" should be Command
16)	Page20: "Internally we distinguish the following components (Figure 5)". Enumeration is
missing. Refer to figure 5 for a list of ....... Would be much better.
17)	Page 20" "an own" needs to be fixed to "its" or the authors discretion to rectify
sentence.
18)	Page 21: Figure 5 is a bad figure with little readability. Font sizes could be improved
in figures 5 and 6.
19)	Footnotes to table elements in some of the tables need to be organized better. Could be
confused with bulleted lists.
20)	Also it would be a good idea to number sub-sections. Generally helps in the refereeing
process.