perfsonar development work

["Luchesar V. ILIEV" <>]

The old ones were there just for backwards compatibility, indeed, so if 
we agree it's time to move ahead completely, I fully support this.

THanks,
Luchesar


Michael Bischoff wrote:
> Hello Luchesar,
>
> > If you have strong preference over one or the other, please let
> > me know. Otherwise, I suggest both to be recognized for reasons of
> > compatibility and consistency with the "echo" eventType messages.
>
> Afaik the use of non-URI eventTypes is considered deprecated and services
> should move to URI's asap.
>
> the old echo req/response should probably also be changed to URI.
>
> regards,
>
> Michael
>
>
> > I'll be able to put the info on the Wiki only later today when I get
> > back to work, so let me explain the most important things shortly in advance:
> >
> >
> > 1) The self-test request is pretty much straightforward, so I guess no
> > additional comments are necessary at the moment. Let me know if this is not 
> > the case, please.
> >
> > 2) The response is a bit more complex, but still very much like the
> > "echo" one you already know:
> >
> >
> > a) the two recognized metadata eventTypes are:
> >
> > success.selftest error.selftest
> >
> > or, using URI syntax instead:
> >
> > http://schemas.perfsonar.net/status/
> > success/echo/1.0 error/echo/1.0
> >
> > If you have strong preference over one or the other, please let
> > me know. Otherwise, I suggest both to be recognized for reasons of 
> > compatibility and
> > consistency with the "echo" eventType messages.
> >
> > b) the data element should contain at least one datum, which (or its value 
> > attribute) should
> > hold:
> >
> >
> > - on successful self-test: "Self-test passed successfully."
> >
> >
> > - in case of errors one datum should be used per error message.
> >
> >
> > In the last case, I'd suggest a general format "COMPONENT: Description",
> > e.g. "EXIST-DB: Database "null" does not exist." (erm, honestly, no pun 
> > intended ;). The
> > emphasis is on clearly stating which check generated the error -- in the 
> > example above, it
> > has been the eXist database. For consistency, the success message could be instead 
> > "*:
> > Self-test passed
> > successfully."
> >
> > There's also an alternative, and please let me know if it feels better
> > to you: both on success and on failure, one datum is returned in the data 
> > element for
> > _each_test_ performed. The datum indicates the
> > component tested and the result. E.g.:
> >
> > <nmwg:data id="..." metadataIdRef="...">
> > <nmwgr:datum type="errorDescription">
> > EXIST-DB: Database "null" does not exist.
> > </nmwgr:datum>
> > <nmwgr:datum type="successDescription">
> > DEVICE: Router "rt1.lon.uk.geant2.net" contacted successfully.
> > </nmwgr:datum>
> > <nmwgr:datum type="successDescription">
> > DEVICE: Router "rt2.lon.uk.geant2.net" contacted successfully.
> > </nmwgr:datum>
> > <nmwgr:datum type="errorDescription">
> > DEVICE: Connection attempt to "rt3.lon.uk.geant2.net" timed out.
> > </nmwgr:datum>
> > </nmwg:data>
> >
> >
> > You might have also noticed the possibility to use the type attribute,
> > which is allowed there, to facilitate the differentiation between datums 
> > indicating errors and
> > datums indicating successfully passed checks.
> >
> > I guess this variant is more complex to implement, but perhaps would be
> > preferred by the Service Desk. Once again, please let me know what you think.
> >
> > I'll save the rest for last. Or was it "the best" for last? Hmm, never
> > mind, indeed. If you have objections, or anything else to comment... Well, 
> > you know already
> > what to do. ;)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Luchesar
> >
> >
> > P.S. There will be examples on the Wiki.
> >
> >
> > P.P.S. I've unintentionally omitted Jason from the previous mail
> > recipients. Sorry about that.
> >
> >
> > Luchesar V. ILIEV wrote:
> >
> > > Hi folks,
> > >
> > >
> > > I've been terribly late with my tasks, and I do owe you _at_least_ a
> > > round of beer. Now, before the number of the necessary "compensatory" rounds 
> > > grows to an
> > > extent endangering my bank account, let me really begin doing something about 
> > > it:
> > >
> > > http://wiki.perfsonar.net/jra1-wiki/index.php/Main_Page
> > > --> Resources
> > > --> Service Monitoring
> > > --> Service Self-testing
> > > --> Invocation/response web messages
> > >
> > >
> > > Direct link:
> > > http://wiki.perfsonar.net/jra1-wiki/index.php/Service_Self-testing#Invocation.2Fresponse_we
> > > b_messages
> > >
> > >
> > > This is pointer to the specification of the extended EchoRequest /
> > > EchoResponse messages used for invocation of the perfSONAR services
> > > self-tests and reporting the results. At the moment there's only the RELAX NG 
> > > schema there,
> > > but I will (must) quickly add more information (this means in the next hours.)
> > >
> > >
> > > I'll keep you updated on the progress. Meanwhile, if you find anything
> > > wrong so far, or have any questions, please do write me.
> > >
> > > As a side note, you might also notice the attempt to organize the Wiki
> > > information on the service monitoring and have it structured better (I should 
> > > have done this
> > > long time ago, actually... erm, well, that's another beer, I guess, for one 
> > > very patient
> > > person, really.) If you have comments, suggestions, or simply don't like it, 
> > > please let me
> > > know.
> > >
> > > Thanks a lot,
> > > Luchesar

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature