[glue-wg] Suggestion for splitting the StorageShare.

[Flavia Donno]

You do not need to publish all possible paths but only the "relevant"ones.
And I agree with Laurence.

Flavia

Laurence Field wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>   
>> If I've understood what you're saying I don't think the namespace ACLs
>> should be in GLUE at all, the granularity is too fine - for example the
>> ACLs could be different for every directory in the tree. In theory we
>> are always told that paths don't matter for SRM, so the client should
>> just negotiate with the server once it finds a space it can use. For VOs
>> (or sites) which insist on having a fixed path mapping I think they need
>> to ensure that the ACLs are set appropriately without needing to have
>> them published explicitly.
>>   
>>     
> This is what I was trying to express the other day when I said that we 
> need something like the LFC. Where as the LFC maps to logical names to 
> SURLs, is this notmapping namespaces (directories) to physical spaces 
> (or is it logical space?).  I agree that this might not belong in the 
> information system on the other hand this doesn't necessarily mean that 
> it should not be in the information model.
>
> Laurence
> _______________________________________________
> glue-wg mailing list
> glue-wg at ogf.org
> http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
>