Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-dev - Re: [pS-dev] Transformation Service proposal

Subject: perfsonar development work

List archive

Re: [pS-dev] Transformation Service proposal


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Roman Lapacz <>
  • To:
  • Cc: "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [pS-dev] Transformation Service proposal
  • Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:27:21 +0100

Andreas Hanemann wrote:
Hi Roman,

Hi

Thanks for your input. I have now added an additional interaction diagram to the document that depicts the interactions. It seems to me that your proposal is more flexible in the way how MAs can be combined with transformation services and it also helps to keep the complexity away from the client (which does not become aware that there is a transformation service involved). For DFN I did not want to make the MA address known to the outside world for security reasons, but I think that the access can be prevented by other mecanisms, too.

In summary, I would propose that your proposal is the way to go and I would then change the document accordingly. Are there further opinions?

We can allow various options like:

- a client can send in a request for data also an address of TrS to eliminate communication between MA and LS (we may have some reasons to use certain instance of TrS)
- a client can send in a request for data also an address of MA where transformed data should be stored (transformation might be time consuming operation, too long for a client to wait for results; a client can later fetch transformed data from that MA)


Roman




Best regards
Andreas


Roman Lapacz schrieb:
Andreas Hanemann wrote:
Hi all,


HI

In attachment I am providing a document about the Transformation Service. It contains a discussion about the scope of the service and also a description how the protocol for the service may look like. Some comments are left in the document which result from discussions involving few JRA1 people (Nina, Szymon and Nicolas).

Comments especially for the scope and the protocol would be desired.



If I remember correctly the idea of TrS was little bit different. Example scenario:

1. The client requests MA for data in specific format X
2. MA contains data in format Y so finds (in LS) TrS which can transform from format Y into X (TrS can be also specified in the request from the client so in this case there is no need to use LS)
3. MA sends the request and data to TrS
4. TrS transforms data into format X
5. TrS sends data back to MA (MA sends them to the client) or directly to the client

Roman



Best regards
Andreas








Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.16.

Top of Page