perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

Jason Zurawski wrote:
> Roman;
>
> > I would say that existence of two parameter elements of the same 
> > namespace with the same name in a container element (here it's the 
> > key) indicates an error situation. But if it was possible I would 
> > drop merging and stay with parameters elements even representing the 
> > same namespace (merging could be done after checking but maybe 
> > dropping would be the simplest solution).
> Maybe not an error, that seems to be a very high level of strictness.  
> Dropping would be simple, or just allowing it to be overwritten (we 
> use a 'last seen' approach currently I think) would work too.  In most 
> cases this probably won't happen anyway, and situations where multiple 
> parameters blocks will be needed distinct namespaces (such as your 
> original example) would be used. 

OK. So we can say that using multiple parameters elements in cases 
described is clarified and agreed. If there will be no objections from 
others I think we can add this to TODO list for the schema. Is it OK?

Roman