perfsonar development work

["Jeff W. Boote" <>]

Nicolas Simar wrote:
> Jason Zurawski wrote:
> > David;
> >
> > > Jason, from your point of view, which of the schema proposals could be
> > > easily made ready for immediate use next week?
> > >
> > >   
> >
> >
> > In my opinion we should proceed with the method that best maps 
> > reality, not which is fastest to implement.  It would be great to hear 
> > comments on both methods from various interested parties soon (and if 
> > its next week you are looking to implement, comments need to come 
> > *very* soon).
>
> I guess that the interested parties are:
> - the visualisation developers: Nina/Vedrin (psUI), David/Andreas (CNM), 
> Daniel(visualperfSONAR)
> - the web-service developers: Roman (RRD), Jeff/Jason (SNMP MP)

I suspect it does not matter that much for the visualization developers. They 
will need to start looking for additional schema/variables no matter what. And, 
I suspect something similar to the current structure should not be difficult for 
them. I believe Jason's proposal is much more similar to the current structure 
than David's. (I do understand the desire to retrieve multiple data types within 
a single data. Especially from a visualization point of view. However, I think 
this would be a complex thing to work into current services. The 'typed' datum 
is a completely new concept.)

For the service developers, I believe the main issue is how difficult it is to 
extend the store to support multiple eventTypes. Multiples, no matter the 
namespace add some complexity.

However, I think we can postpone some of the complexity (at least from the 
perspective of the RRD MA) if we first support the errors/discards from the 
characteristic namespace. This will reduce the number of nmwg classes that Roman 
needs to create in support of this. (And, they end up being near duplicates to 
the existing 'utilization' class - so it should be trivial.)

The SNMP MP implementation does not have complexity in this space because it is 
using DOM for this - additional namespaces are just handled at the query level - 
there is no 'marshalling' to worry about. However, as I said - the multiple 
eventTypes are still an issue.

Perhaps we should start the discussion with evaluating this part (how do deal 
with multiple eventTypes) of Jason's proposal. (I like it, but I was his 
sounding board for ideas...) It would be far better if others commented.

jeff


> Nicolas
>
> > > Do you foresee an easy way starting with only the basic
> > > features necessary (for next week), while not much complicating the
> > > later integration of more complex features (e.g. tool namespace snmp)?
> > >   
> >
> >
> > Any or all of the standard we choose can be implemented to start with, 
> > as long as everything is fully implemented in the end.  in my opinion 
> > keeping things 'similar' to the characteristic style (similar to 
> > utilization) is the fastest route to start with (both for getting 
> > comments on this list and for allowing service developers to get 
> > started).  No matter which method we choose it is imperative that 
> > extension be possible in the future (i.e. to the SNMP namespace, etc.).
> >
> > -jason