perfsonar development work

[Loukik Kudarimoti <>]

Maciej,

LS registration process is simple and a registration makes data 
discovery easy. I have no doubt about this. I wouldn't like to force 
this onto a developer. I would like the developer to see the advantage 
in the process and then put the feature into their software. A perfSONAR 
service definition should include minimum set of requirements and for me 
this only includes schema compatibility (i.e. NMWG v2 schemas)

Nobody forces a business to advertise themselves into Yellow pages. 
Businesses see the advantage and do so. If a service doesn't have the 
feature but the user would like to register with the LS, the user would 
request the developer to put that feature in the next release.

All this said, I am happy either way. I would prefer the way I mention 
above but I am quite happy to compromise.

Loukik.

Maciej Glowiak wrote:
> Roman Lapacz napisał(a):
> > I see your point. But assume that I want to create a simple python MP 
> > which stores data in existing Java RRD MA. If I did it without the 
> > registration feature (because I decided that it's useless for me and 
> > I didn't want to put more efforts) then couldn't I call it a 
> > perfsonar service?
>
> In such definition -- yes.
> I don't think it's so compicated to create registration. It's just 
> sending one request to the service.
>
> Think about people who just use MP you mentioned. Some of them may 
> want to register such MP to LS and what then? That's perfSONAR, so we 
> must agree for small set of common functionality. I think such 
> functionality is LS registration.
>
> Maciej