perfsonar development work

[Maciej Glowiak <>]

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....
>
> The scheme proposed by Jeff looks sensible to me.


Hi, Verena

That's ok for me. But I based on something what was already agreed, 
that's why parameters inside parameter. The second thing is I am not 
sure it doesn't require schema and implementation change. Of course it 
may be done, but my intention was to make the change as simple/quick as 
possible using existing schema and solutions already made.

Maciej

--

 --------------------------------------------------------------------
| Maciej Glowiak        Network Research and Development            ||
| 

     Poznan Supercomputing and Networking Center ||
| (+48 61) 858 2024          -- skype_id: maciej_psnc   GG: 4526858 ||
 ====================================================================