perfsonar development work

[Maciej Glowiak <>]

Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
> Maciej Glowiak wrote:
> > Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
> > > Maciej Glowiak wrote:
> > > > Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:
> > > > > umm..I am trying to understand your suggestion Maciej. I have a 
> > > > > question. Are you suggesting that the rnc specification for the LS 
> > > > > registration message *of a particular service* (not the LS itself) 
> > > > > be split across two documents - Interface Specification of the LS 
> > > > > itself and the Interface specification of the particular service?
> > > >
> > > > Hi Loukik,
> > > >
> > > > (I was pretty sure I was responsing that e-mail, but now can't find 
> > > > it on perfsonar-dev.)
> > > >
> > > > That's exactly what I was thinking of.
> > > >
> > > > Maciej
> > > Maciej,
> > >
> > > We will consider this as a proposal for change for future work. For 
> > > the upcoming release, please continue as decided already.
> > >
> > > Further, if you can file this as a bug in bugzilla ( I have created a 
> > > product for the hand over process), it would be very helpful. You can 
> > > find the product here:
> > > https://bugzilla.perfsonar.net/enter_bug.cgi?product=Handover%20Process
> >
> > Loukik, for LSRegisterRequest I had to use that way. It's impossible 
> > to define schema for that request other than "sonar.rnc". I was 
> > talking about it many times, but maybe it wasn't so clear.
> It looks like we are talking about two different things. ( I recognize 
> that there might be two different issues here)
>
> I understood your suggestion *in this thread* as this:
> "The rnc specification for the LS registration message *of a particular 
> service* (not the LS itself) be split across two documents - Interface 
> Specification of the LS itself and the Interface specification of the 
> particular service"
>
> Is this correct?

Yes. I think there is one, common problem but it might be seen from two 
different perspectives: 1) LS and 2) other service.

LSRegistrationRequest is a part of LS interface, but is also an 
interface of other services that communicate to LS.

As LS developer I am unable to create RNC file for that request for 
<data> content because I don't know what particular services may want to 
send to LS.

So this part should be in service documentation. But there is a common 
template for registration (<message> and <metadata> elements) that 
should be defined globally for all services (so we should put them into 
LS interface document) in order to avoid defining the same by different 
services in different ways.

> > This is not a bug, just an idea how to improve documentation (and 
> > simplify a bit).
> We want to use Bugzilla to track both bugs and enhancement requests 
> (Bugzilla supports it already - just choose appropriate level on the 
> right side of the window). Hence I would like you to file a 
> 'bug/enhancement request'. (We are getitng a lot of feedback and hearing 
> a lot of ideas. Without filing them, we will forget them in future).

That's ok. I'll describe this bug.

M.



--

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Maciej Glowiak        Network Research and Development            ||
| 

     Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center ||
| (+48 61) 858 2024     http://monstera.man.poznan.pl/              ||
 ====================================================================