[glue-wg] Some doubts

[Maarten Litmaath]

Sergio Andreozzi wrote:

>>You are right about the complicated scenario of supported protocol. I do 
>>not know if the use of the AccessPolicy on protocol works. Suppose the 
>>scenario where LHCb wants RFIO protocol available for one StorageShare, 
>>while for another one LHCb wants only FILE protocol. How can we 
>>represent this situation with ACL?
>>  
> 
> 
> we might want to add the association from AccessProtocol to StorageShare;
> what do people think about this?

I suppose it would be OK (just a few foreign keys in the Share),
but I think Riccardo's use case is _not_ a good example: CNAF is just
being asked to do something silly to work around an LHCb software bug!

>>>is is exactly the role of the Resource - maybe the name isn't very
>>>good but the Resource is supposed to represent the management software.
>>>So you would have a Resource for GPFS, with an associated Datastore to
>>>represent the disk servers.
>>>
>>>    
>>
>>In this case, we could define the StorageShare on StorageResource.. or not?
>>  
> 
> 
> also here... I think Riccardo is right. The association from 
> StorageShare to DataStore should be changed from StorageShare to 
> StorageResource...

No, one reason we invented the DataStore was to show explicitly what
hardware is being used by a Share, so we need to keep that relationship.

> alternatively, we can add in parallel if people really want to discover 
> the type of data store on which a storage share is configured.
> This will complicate the life of sysadmin who have to configure the 
> providers, therefore, let us consider this issue carefully.

I would argue in the other direction: the Share-Resource relation can be
inferred (if desired) from the Share-DataStore relation, but not vice versa.