perfsonar development work

["Jeff W. Boote" <>]

Fausto Vetter wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Since tool and schedule has an n-to-n relationship (if we think in 
> database concepts :) ), I guess the best way to do is to use metadatas 
> like bellow:
> - tool metadata
> - schedule metadata
> - metadata to join tool and schedule

Interesting idea, but I'm not sure we really need the full generality of an 
n-to-n relationship.

I always thought of this as a n-to-1 relationship from the point of view of the 
scheduler. It has n entries in it's table of received (and approved) requests, 
and each one of them has a single 'measurement' it needs to perform using that 
given schedule.

Can you give examples where extending this to an n-to-n relationship would 
provide benefit? I can see it would be easier to group multiple measurements 
under the same schedule.

However, I don't see a clear benefit to that over having the client make 
multiple requests to the scheduler. In fact, it would complicate the deletion of 
a single one of those measurements - and could be more complicated in the AAA 
process (what if an owamp measurement is ok, but the bwctl one is not?).

jeff