perfsonar development work

[Piotr Pikusa <>]

Hi all!

Thank you Slawek for this document! For me the first proposal is well 
done. It's clear, it takes into account function of the service sending 
a response. I think that the second conception is too general and third 
is too specialist. Of course the third one is very comfortable for a 
developer engaged in particular service because one create new eventType 
without looking at other services. But it could lead to redundant 
entries describing the same functionality with different ulrs. Advantage 
of the first idea is when one create new service, he/she sees all other 
eventTypes and doesn't have to invent anything new. And also one keeps 
compatibility.
To sum up - Third solution seems to be the fastest to agree, but the 
first one is the clearest and most elegant.

Cheers
Piotr Pikusa


Slawomir Trzaszczka wrote:
> 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
> >
> >     
>
>