perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

[Jerome Durand <>]

My understanding is that the UI should support a protocol, not an MA. If 
I understand correctly, we needed to move on quickly and change things 
in the schema when problems came, which is perfectly understandable at 
the beginning of the development (even if I tended to say the opposite). 
This is what is causing the small incompatibility issues we have now...

From what was said last week, the schema is now gonna follow the same 
release process than the "perfSONAR tool suite". I guess it is going to 
be much easier to follow what is going on and make sure that the UI 
supports the protocol the MA talks.

Jerome




Vedrin Jeliazkov wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> Szymon Trocha 
> <>
>  wrote:
>
>
> > So you are saying that I should install the snapshot of 14 February in 
> > order to get rid of my problems?
>
>
> If you decide to upgrade your Java RRD MA installation, it might be a better
> idea to use a fresh version from the CVS (I'm afraid we haven't tested
> PerfsonarUI against the snapshot from 14 Feb either, because of lack of access
> to a running service with this specific version). Note, it might still work,
> but not for sure.  
>
>
> > And that means (probably) each time a 
> > new UI version is released there is a chance it will not work with 
> > current installations?
>
>
> The UI v0.05 has been tested against and supports the following well known
> schemas/service versions/implementations, which were accessible during the
> release preparation:
>
> - Protocol: NMWG(v2) 1 (Pre Namespace versioning), Implementation: Java,
> Version: 0.1 (EGEE tag)
>
> - Protocol: NMWG(v2) 2 (With Namespace versioning), Implementation: Python,
> Version: 0.1-19
>
> - Protocol: NMWG(v2) 2 (With Namespace versioning), Implementation: Java,
> Version: CVS snapshot from 2006-03-04 14:09 (EET)
>
> Nina might have a look on what's causing the incompatibility issue with your
> previously installed version, but it would be also really nice if you could
> upgrade it.
>  
>
> > That's a pity the changes are not compatible and what is so specific in 
> > my installation (even older) that all others work but not mine :-(
>
>
> Well, I would say that the schema/namespace should change much less frequently
> than what is the case up to now. Imagine changing some protocol every other
> day and than developing applications, which can speak tens or hundreds of
> protocol jargons... Let's try to keep this number below 5 or 10 ;-)
>
> Kind regards,
> Vedrin