perfsonar development work

[Jason Zurawski <>]

Roman;

> > I believe this has been brought up before in previous conversations, 
> > I don't see a problem with allowing multiple parameters blocks, as 
> > long as they have a different namespace designation (in your example 
> > nmwg/select/transform is ok).  But this is not even a hard 
> > requirement, we could just 'merge' blocks with a similar namespace 
> > (although it will be important to document the behavior).
>
> What do you mean "'merge' blocks with a similar namespace"? If you put 
> parameter elements (for example, those related with nmwg, select and 
> trans) in one block then you lose the information to what parameters 
> group/namespace they belong. Example:

Yes, I wasn't proposing this, we would loose a lot of information this 
way...

> Could you show an example of merging you mentioned?


Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I meant a case like this:

<nmwg:key>
 <nmwg:parameters>
   <nmwg:parameter name="this" value="1" />
   <nmwg:parameter name="that" value="2" />
   <nmwg:parameter name="theother" value="3" />
 </nmwg:parameters>
 <nmwg:parameters>
   <nmwg:parameter name="this" value="4" />
   <nmwg:parameter name="those" value="5" />
 </nmwg:parameters>
</nmwg:key>


Should probably be treated like this:


<nmwg:key>
 <nmwg:parameters>
   <nmwg:parameter name="this" value="1" />
   <nmwg:parameter name="that" value="2" />
   <nmwg:parameter name="theother" value="3" />
<!--
This would collide, and a rule such as 'last seen' or 'first seen' would 
be needed to resolve the conflict.

   <nmwg:parameter name="this" value="4" />
-->
   <nmwg:parameter name="those" value="5" />
 </nmwg:parameters>
</nmwg:key>


-jason