perfsonar development work

[Slawomir Trzaszczka <>]

On Fri, 2009-09-25 at 10:08 +0200, Slawomir Trzaszczka wrote:


Hi,

I would like to describe you three proposals of event types hierarchy. 
Event types (result codes) described in this document are related ONLY
with RESPONSE message. So, I would like to show you some inconsistency
between event types in requests and response what is the one of purpose
to use new event type policy (result codes). In this example I depict
echo message.


-----------------------ECHO REQUEST--------------------------------
<nmwg:message xmlns:nmwg="http://ggf.org/ns/nmwg/base/2.0/";
type="EchoRequest">
  <nmwg:metadata id="meta">
         <nmwg:eventType>
            http://schemas.perfsonar.net/tools/admin/echo/2.0
         </nmwg:eventType>
  </nmwg:metadata>
  <nmwg:data id="data" metadataIdRef="meta"/>
</nmwg:message>

-------------------------------------------------------------------

response for this message (dotted notation of event types)

-----------------------ECHO RESPONSE--------------------------------
<nmwg:message type="EchoResponse">
  <nmwg:metadata id="resultCodeMetadata">
    <nmwg:eventType>success.echo</nmwg:eventType>
  </nmwg:metadata>
  <nmwg:data metadataIdRef="resultCodeMetadata">
    <nmwgr:datum>This is the echo response from the
service.</nmwgr:datum>
  </nmwg:data>
</nmwg:message>
--------------------------------------------------------------------

As you can see there is a big "inconsistency". Hence we would like to
use url event types policy in result codes(similar to event types in
requests). The question is how  this event types can be placed in
hierarchy. We have three proposals of this hierarchy, so I would like to
invite you to common discussion about it. This change is very important
for all perfsonar services. This change, move from dotted notation to
url, will influence on event types format in responses, so I strongly
encourage you to this discussion!.


Regards,

Slawek

> Hi all,
> 
> 
> I would like to ask you few questions about eventTypes format. 
> Some times ago it was a discussion about eventTypes format. The common 
> decision was URL format for eventTypes in requests and responses
> (example below)
> 
> ----------------
> EXAMPLE
> 
> echo for LookupService 
> 
> old version - dotted notation eventType
> 
> <nmwg:metadata id="resultCodeMetadata">
>     <nmwg:eventType>success.echo</nmwg:eventType>
> </nmwg:metadata>
> 
> new version - URL notation
> 
> <nmwg:metadata id="result-code">
> <nmwg:eventType>http://perfsonar.net/result/success/echo</nmwg:eventType>
> </nmwg:metadata>
> 
> -----------------------------
> 
> After discussion with Jason we decided that we have to  define eventType
> hierarchy together. So What is your proposal of this hierarchy ?.
> 
> 
> I send you links with eventTypes hierarchy in old 'dotted' version and
> hierarchy of it in some services :
> 
> examples of the eventTypes in services :
> 
> https://wiki.man.poznan.pl/perfsonar-mdm/index.php/Result_code_hierarchy
> 
> hierarchy tree of eventTypes :
> 
> https://wiki.man.poznan.pl/perfsonar-mdm/index.php/Result_code_hierarchy
> 
> 
> I think that we should test our services, apis and check What kind of
> eventTypes do we use. In next release we would like to use only URL
> eventTypes.
> 
> 
> Every proposal for eventTypes hierarchy will be helpful. 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Slawomir
> 

-- 
+--------------------------------------------+
 Slawomir Trzaszczka                       
                                           
 Poznan Supercomputing & Networking Center 
+--------------------------------------------+

Attachment: eventTypes.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document