perfsonar-dev - Re: [pS-dev] rough draft on tops messages
Subject: perfsonar development work
List archive
- From: "Jeff W. Boote" <>
- To: ulisses <>
- Cc: , Jason Zurawski <>, Loukik Kudarimoti <>
- Subject: Re: [pS-dev] rough draft on tops messages
- Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 08:40:33 -0600
ulisses wrote:
Hi all
After doing by mistake an rm *.xml, I have redone it roughtly again.
Please tell me if the following is wrong or not, I attach the following
messages to be exchanged:
+ Full database
---> TOPSDownloadDBRequest
<--- TOPSDownloadDBResponse
+ Partial database download of nodes
---> TopsDownloadNodesRequest
<--- TopsDownloadNodesResponse
once these are clear I will make the rest. Please see the comments on the
headers.
You are very much missing the spirit of the schema.
The message 'type' should be something very general. It is actually very unlikely that you should be creating your own message type. There are already some defined for the MA that should be usable for your purpose. (SetupDataRequest and MetadataKeyRequest)
To indicate if you want the 'full db' or just some specific set of nodes, you should be using the EventType of the metadata. And, you should be using the parameters of the metadata to indicate things like time ranges. In fact, for that specific case you should probably be making use of the already existing 'Select' event type and chaining two metadata together to ask for it. Something like:
<nmwg:message type="SetupDataRequest" id="m1">
<nmwg:metadata id="topo1">
<nmwg:eventType>fullDB</nmwg:eventType>
<fulldb:subject id="baseDBid" />
<!-- Just a guess at possible database specific parameters. -->
<fulldb:parameters id="fdbparam1">
<nmwg:parameter name="AS">1101</nmwg:parameter>
</fulldb:parameters>
</nmwg:metadata>
<nmwg:metadata id="select1">
<nmwg:eventType>select</nmwg:eventType>
<!-- filter chaining to indicate 'selection' range requested -->
<!-- ref indicates 'basis' for this selection -->
<select:subject id="selsubj1" metadataIdRef="topo1" />
<select:parameters id="selparam1">
<nmwg:parameter name="startTime">1119312000</nmwg:parameter>
<nmwg:parameter name="endTime">1119830400</nmwg:parameter>
</select:parameters>
</nmwg:metadata>
<!-- trigger to indicate what 'chain' of metadata to use for request -->
<nmwg:data id="data1" metadataIdRef="select1">
</nmwg:message>
The 'node' request would be very similar. You would modify the first metadata to indicate a different event type. This one for a node retrieval. And, then the parameters would be specific to that.
To be honest, I think you could probably even use the same event type for these two and just indicate different parameters for the selection of all or specific nodes... But, since I don't fully understand your database I can't be sure.
I would prefer to talk about this by phone. My telephone number is +34
912127625, ext 5534
I think it is probably about time for a conference call with all the developers. I'll propose one in another email. Each of us has different specialties. One on one calls might help initially, but I think a more full group call would be more appropriate. You seem to be having trouble with more than one area. (Plus we have added a couple more developers, so it is a good time to get them involved.)
You keep presenting different ways to solve the problem, but without us knowing what problem you are trying to solve it is difficult for us to suggest things and know if they are appropriate.
the following question arise:
- Do responses must to share a key or identifier in the response that
reference the request?
What is shared is completely up to the service. If you support a MetadataKeyRequest message, then it would of course be expected that you would return keys.
What is definitely expected is that you share metadata along with the data that describes the 'common' parts of the data. For example, given the request I suggest above, the response should have those two metadata in it. With a full set of parameters fully describing the data that is returned.
Have you looked at the example requests/responses in the schema directory?
jeff
- rough draft on tops messages, ulisses, 08/30/2006
- Re: [pS-dev] rough draft on tops messages, Jeff W. Boote, 08/31/2006
- Re: [pS-dev] rough draft on tops messages, ulisses, 08/31/2006
- Re: [pS-dev] rough draft on tops messages, Jeff W. Boote, 08/31/2006
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.