perfsonar development work

[Guilherme Fernandes <>]

Michael Bischoff wrote:
> Hello all,
>   
Hi,
> I have a question regarding the LSRegistrationComponent in
> org.perfsonar.service.base.registration vs 
> org.perfsonar.service.measurementArchive.register
>
> Is there any reason why those two very similar (one supports 
> ServiceContent(file/xmldb)
> default values are slightly different) exists in the way that they do now?
>   
This happened when we needed the LSRegistrationComponent for the MPs. At 
that time we only had the 
org.perfsonar.service.measurementArchive.register one, which was used 
for the registration of RRD-MA and SQL-MA (the other services didn't 
register on the LS at that time).

Since the MA's LSRegistrationComponent had ma's specific variables 
(service.ma.conf_file, component.ma-registrator.scheduler_component, 
etc), I changed the MA's component to make it generic and put it in 
base. I know RRD-MA and SQL-MA use the one at 
measurementArchive.register and I guess the other MA's do too. MP's 
should be using the one at base.registration, but I'm not sure this is 
consistent across all.
> Perhaps one should inherit from the other or should both inherit a new 
> abstract class, fixes
> now have to be done in two places. I also believe that difference isn't 
> documented atm. Also
> are MA only using ServiceContent's?
>   
I agree that there shouldn't be different classes for LSRegistration. 
The main differences AFAIK are that the one at base can register only 
the "service.r.*" variables in service.properties, without the need of 
using file or xmldb, and that the MA's component can update using xmldb 
(the generic one doesn't support this functionality).

Since the functionality of having xmldb based registration is also 
useful for some MP services as well, I don't see why both components 
shouldn't be merged in base. Between, it seems that SSH/Telnet MP also 
uses eXist for keeping metadata configuration, I don't know which 
LSRegistrationComponent it is using right now, maybe someone can comment 
on this?
> The reason that I'm working on it is because the current support for 
> ServiceContent's doesn't
> fit our needs as a xmldb is overkill and file approach is impractical so I 
> was coding
> additional support for a new ServiceContent that takes it's information from 
> the servlet
> context.
>   
Are you sure the one in base.registration doesn't suffice your needs?

Best regards,

Guilherme
> I've also done some maintenance on the base, changes that should effect
> Unused variables. Type-safety warnings. Unused imports. etc. the usual.
>
> It makes no sense to check it in at this point because it would likely 
> frustrate the 3.0
> release, I'll make a branch and merge it after the release.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Michael Bischoff
>