perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

Jeff W. Boote wrote:
> Roman Lapacz wrote:
> > I see your point (you a right to change the namespace). I think we 
> > can accept both approaches (at least for now as we don't have any 
> > experience using them). The second one seems to be simpler (and 
> > probably faster if you don't have to use xpath engine). The first one 
> > is more general. Are you OK to support both?
>
> Absolutely. In fact, I think the more simple one is certainly the 
> first one to do.

Great.

Jason, could you add the implementation of 'parameters'  and 'subject' 
elements for namespace 
http://schema.perfonar.net/tools/transform/utilization/unixtime/2.0 ?


Roman

> I was just trying to figure out what would be needed to create a 
> generic transformation service in support of something like this. But, 
> there is no reason to do the more complex case first. (I just wanted 
> to make sure the abstraction worked, I think it does.)
>
> jeff