perfsonar development work

[Nina Jeliazkova <>]

Hi,

I would also vote for splitting ps-base (if possible).  If a client
needs to download several Mb jar and then ignoring it, it is not a very
efficient scheme.

For example in perfsonarUI we will be interested for example for using
LS and AA client functionality, but not everything in the base. The nmwg
dependency should not be an issue, if it is already packaged in a jar,
then one can use nmwg + ls + aa jar.

Regards,
Nina

Loukik Kudarimoti написа:
> <Merging another thread on the same topic but different recipients>
>
> I believe there are existing APIs to make use of functionality such as
> LS registration and pSPing. But these interfaces rely on the use of
> our data beans (NMWG message objects) that are constructed after
> parsing the received xml. Any change to these data beans would be big
> effort indeed.
>
> I am still not convinced that this is a strong requirement for us to
> split ps-base.jar. Documentation should suffice and users should be
> able to ignore the the bits they don't need.
>
> Loukik.
>
>
> Anand Patil wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I would say both. Non perfSONAR applications do not need to use the
>> entire pS Base. As of now from the documentation of LS
>> (http://wiki.perfsonar.net/jra1-wiki/index.php/How_to_add_LS_Registration_to_the_service)
>>
>> these seem to be made for other pS services. Non-pS service will not
>> find it easy to integrate it in their own services.
>>
>> What will be useful is a stand alone module (jar file) (like jakarta
>> commons breaks functionality into smaller components) perhaps with some
>> exposed interface/API that can handle only LS or handle only pSPing.
>>
>> regards,
>> - anand.
>
>
> 
>  wrote:
>> Hi Candido,
>>
>> it is not a documentation issue only, but the problem is that the
>> perfSONAR base is designed for pure perfSONAR services. The cNIS
>> implementation has been started independent from perfSONAR and now there
>> is the need to add the perfSONAR interface on top.
>>
>> Best regards
>> Andreas
>>
>>  
>>> Hi Andreas,
>>>
>>> El 25/09/2007, a las 14:38, 
>>> 
>>>  escribió:
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Dear colleagues,
>>>>
>>>> During the cNISv1 meeting which currently takes place we are
>>>> discussing
>>>> the fulfillment of requirements for perfSONAR. For the PSNC developers
>>>> (CNIS group) there is the problem that the file psBase.jar is quite
>>>> large
>>>> and that it takes some effort to identify what they need. This
>>>> relates to
>>>> implementing the registration with the LS and also to the Echo
>>>> request/response. Anand's opinion is (and I agree) that it would be
>>>> nice
>>>> if the psBase.jar would be split up into more clearly understandable
>>>> parts. Such a split-up would also be useful for other users, I
>>>> guess. My
>>>> plea is that we should increase the priority of this point.
>>>>       
>>> I'm not sure if I understand your problem, but it seems a problem of
>>> documentation. There is a set of classes in the perfSONAR base and
>>> you don't know which java classes you have to use for implementing
>>> the registration with the LS and the Echo request/response. So, IMHO
>>> the solution is not splitting up the psBase.jar.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>>    
>>>> Best regards
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> -- 
>>> Cándido Rodríguez Montes        E-mail: 
>>> 
>>> Red.ES/RedIRIS                    Tel:+34 955 05 66 13
>>> Edificio CICA
>>> Avenida Reina Mercedes, s/n
>>> 41012 Sevilla
>>> SPAIN
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>
>>   
>
>

-- 
---------------------------------
Dr. Nina Nikolova-Jeliazkova
Institute for Parallel Processing
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
Acad. G. Bonchev St 25-A
1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
Tel: +359 886 802011
ICQ: 10705013
www: http://ambit.acad.bg/nina
---------------------------------
PGP Public Key
http://cert.acad.bg/pgp-keys/keys/nina-nikolova-0xEEABA669.asc
        8E99 8BAD D804 1A43 27B7  7F87 CF04 C7D1 EEAB A669
---------------------------------------------------------------