perfsonar development work

[Martin Swany <>]

Hi Roman,

I missed this before.  I think that we've always agreed that the
value of a parameter could be a simple string, or a more complex
element.  I would say that one could do what you suggest by
wrapping the elements of the map in a single element.

<nmwg:parameter name="parameter_which_is_a_map">
  <complexValueMap>
    <map:item name="name1">value1</map:item>
    <map:item name="name2">value2</map:item>
    <map:item name="name3">value3</map:item>
  </complexValueMap>
</nmwg:parameter>

I think that has always been viable.  But I think we also agree
that we shouldn't over-use parameters as we could structure
the entire schema as attribute/value pairs and make more
work for ourselves.  So, I see this as a design tradeoff.

best,
martin


> I used to propose to have structures like a list or a map inside a  
> parameter. Maybe it would be worth to consider it again.
>
> <nmwg:parameters>
> <!-- list parameter -->
> <nmwg:parameter name="parameter_which_consists_of_list">
>   <list:item>value1</list:item>
>   <list:item>value2</list:item>
>   <list:item>value3</list:item>
> </nmwg:parameter>
> <!-- map parameter -->
> <nmwg:parameter name="parameter_which_consists_of_map">
>   <map:item name="name1">value1</map:item>
>   <map:item name="name2">value2</map:item>
>   <map:item name="name3">value3</map:item>
> </nmwg:parameter>
> </nmwg:parameters>
>
>
> example for keyword parameter:
>
> <nmwg:parameters>
> <nmwg:parameter name="keyword">
>   <map:item name="project">geant2</map:item>
>   <map:item name="status">test</map:item>
>   <map:item name="expiration">2009/01/01</map:item>
>   <!--
>   <map:item name="expiration">
>       <nmtm:time type="ISO" value="2009-01-01T10:40:00Z"/>
>   </map:item>
>   -->
> </nmwg:parameter>
> </nmwg:parameters>