perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

I understand now. So the question goes to Loukik and jra4 guys: which 
way do you prefer? Should I change the code to accept location element 
or keep what we already have? It's up to you.

Roman


Jason Zurawski wrote:
> All;
>
> As suggested on topology calls about a month ago I implemented a 
> change that placed all 'location' oriented elements inside of a 
> location element, consider these examples:
>
> old way:
>    <nmtopo3:node xmlns:nmtopo3=http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/topology/base/3.0/
>                              id="node1">
>          <nmtopo3:city>Newark</nmtopo3:city>
>          <nmtopo3:country>USA</nmtopo3:country>
>          <nmtopo3:institution>University of 
> Delaware</nmtopo3:institution>        </nmtopo3:node>
>
> new way:
>    <nmtopo3:node xmlns:nmtopo3=http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/topology/base/3.0/
>                              id="node1">
>          <nmtopo3:location>
>                <nmtopo3:city>Newark</nmtopo3:city>
>                <nmtopo3:country>USA</nmtopo3:country>
>                <nmtopo3:institution>University of 
> Delaware</nmtopo3:institution>                   <!-- plus new things 
> as well (zipcode, state,
>                         streetAddress, floor, room, cage, rack,
>                         shelf, etc.)
>                -->
>          </nmtopo3:location>           </nmtopo3:node>
>
>
> I reinserted the functions that are causing errors w/ Roman's code 
> (related to the city, country, and institution elements), so now these 
> elements can remain as direct children of the node.   Sorry for any 
> confusion or errors that were caused because of this change. 
> -jason


--

//  PSNC, Poland
//  phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24
//  http://www.man.poznan.pl