perfsonar development work

[Loukik Kudarimoti <>]

Verena Venus wrote:
> Hi Loukik,
>
> Am Monday 09 July 2007 13:16 schrieb Loukik Kudarimoti:
>
> [...]
>
> > I think its very beneficial to have this functionality and is very easy
>
> > to implement it (It shouldn't take more than a couple of hours). But I
>
> > would say that its up to you guys. All services in perfsonar 2.0 (except
>
> > bwctl mp) support this functionality.
>
> >
>
> In fact we do support this feature in the 0.2.1 release of our service.
Ok, we weren't aware of your new micro-release. Can you drop an email to 
release management whenever you produce a new micro-release?
> > As far as a "definition of what is a proper perfSONAR service" is
>
> > concerned, we don't have any such document yet.
>
> > Nicolas, Szymon, any thoughts?
>
> >
>
> I'd like to bring up the idea of a perfSONAR validator (again), which 
> should be easy to accomplish, now that we have the SOAP UI test 
> projects for the services. Just extract what all these test files have 
> in common, and you have testing script for common perfsonar services. 
> This could also be the starting point for defining what a "proper" 
> perfSONAR service is.
>
> And obviously, we have a need for such a thing (see Mark and Matthias).

I take your point on the need for such a validtor. However, I think such 
a validator would still need a documented definition of what exactly 
does it need to validate (i.e., what features should it be checking 
for). I think we need an initial list (like echo functionality, ls 
registration, result codes, doc/lit style, logging, wsdl, etc)

Loukik.

> Kind regards,
>
> Verena
>
> --
>
> Verena Venus - DFN Labor
>
> Regionales Rechenzentrum Universitaet Erlangen-Nuernberg
>
> Martensstrasse 1, D-91058 Erlangen