perfsonar development work

[Roman Lapacz <>]

Verena Venus wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Am Tuesday 10 July 2007 00:01 schrieb Jeff W. Boote:
>   
> > Maciej Glowiak wrote:
> >     
> > > Sorry, small mistake (in supportedEventTypes), it should be:
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > > <nmwg:metadata id="lookup-info">
> > >   <nmwg:parameters id="lookup-info">
> > >
> > >      <nmwg:parameter name="serviceName" value="Java RRD MA" />
> > >      <nmwg:parameter name="accessPoint" value="http://shower.fr:8080"; />
> > >      <nmwg:parameter name="serviceType" value="MA" />
> > >      <nmwg:parameter name="serviceDescription"
> > >            value="Java RRD MA, perfSONAR project, 229.148.249.60" />
> > >
> > >      <nmwg:parameter name="supportedEventTypes">
> > >         <nmwg:parameters id="eventTypes">
> > >             <nmwg:parameter name="eventType1"
> > >                             value="http://.../utilization/"; />
> > >             <nmwg:parameter name="eventType2"
> > >                             value="http://.../l2-path-status/"; />
> > >         </nmwg:parameters>
> > >     </nmwg:parameter>
> > >
> > > </nmwg:metadata>
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > But anyway, the question was about general idea of such change.
> > >       
> > I already gave my opinion of the general change. But, I'm curious about the
> > specifics here as well.
> >
> > Why not just use:
> >
> > <nmwg:parameter name="supportedEventTypes">
> >      <nmwg:eventType>eventType1</nmwg:eventType>
> >      <nmwg:eventType>eventType2</nmwg:eventType>
> >      <nmwg:eventType>eventType3</nmwg:eventType>
> >      <nmwg:eventType>eventType4</nmwg:eventType>
> >      <nmwg:eventType>eventType5</nmwg:eventType>
> > </nmwg:parameter>
> >
> > I don't really see the reason to put another parameters container in. Or
> > any reason to use a list of parameters inside this either.
> >
> >     
>
> I totally agree. I think it's a little bit confusing to have parameters inside 
> parameters....
>   

But it was accepted during the meeting in Brasil when more complex 
parameter structure is needed (I had similar opinion that time).
The problem here is different. The question is do we want to have only 
parameters instead of a number of elements (defined in the schema) in 
the lookup info set.

Roman

> The scheme proposed by Jeff looks sensible to me.
>
> Kind regards,
> Verena
>
>