perfsonar development work

[Szymon Trocha <>]

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Loukik Kudarimoti wrote:

> Szymon Trocha wrote:
> > On Wed, 16 Jan 2008, Michael Michalis wrote:
> >
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > Hash: SHA1
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > As you can see in svn report I've made some changes on the eXist admin 
> > > servlet code and added two more properties in servlet.properties so I 
> > > could deal with the problem of a not uniform way of naming properties in 
> > > perfsonar services  But as it was pointed out by Loukik, this causes 
> > > essentially a duplication of information. So it has been decided that  in 
> > > order for the web admin servlets to work properly we are considering RRD 
> > > MA properties to be the standard That is at least for eXist 
> > > configuration(which was the cause of the problem so far):
> > > component.ma.xmldb.db_adminpassword
> > > component.ma.xmldb.db_uri.xmlrpc
> > >
> > > As from tomorrow the perfsonar-web-admin jar and build guide will roll 
> > > back to their previous version and the RRD MA properties will be 
> > > considered a standard.
> >
> > What's the impact on service developers work then?
> To be honest, for the developers, it sounds like very little effort to make 
> the changes. Change it in their config file and then make small changes in 
> the source code.
>
> What is important and may take more effort is to identify across all services 
> which properties are common and to make sure that developers use the same 
> names. Such names should be listed somewhere (wiki, svn, etc) for developers 
> to refer to and maybe add new ones. Basically a development related procedure 
> needs to be setup here.

I agree with you it should be defined somewhere. And agreed. I share 
Maciej's oppinion it could be defined in specification which (where I 
disagree with you :) ) should define all common requirements.

> In the short term, at least the exist related properties must be made common.
>
> > P.S Could I ask once *AGAIN* for *NOT* doing cross-posting to the list and 
> > individuals. It's really annoying to receive e-mails duplication. I don't 
> > really see a reason for doing this.
> This is a problem with the mailing list server. For example, the one at DANTE 
> makes sure that it doesn't send duplicates. Perhaps this can be investigated 
> with internet2.

No, this is not abbout server. It's about sendint to the list in to: and 
cc: to individuals.

> Also, I am not sure if your proposed solution will work for everyone. Myself 
> and at least a few others that I know, rely on our names being in the to or 
> cc field in order to sort out which ones need quick attention (and also which 
> ones are relevant).

I read all mails independently they are sent to the list or not. So 
sending them twice doesn't increase my attention twice :)

Regards,
__
Szymon Trocha

Poznan Supercomputing & Ntw. Center ::: NETWORK OPERATION CENTER
Tel. (+48 61) 8582022 ::: http://noc.man.poznan.pl