[glue-wg] 1st Draft of the GLUE 2.0 LDAP Implementation

[Burke, S (Stephen)]

glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org 
> [mailto:glue-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Konya said:
>  From the nordugrid experience we find the DIT very 
> important. According to our 
> view the LDAP rendering must come with a recommendation for DIT.

A recommendation would imply that people are allowed to do something
different ... also it's possible that we make some things mandatory and
others not, e.g. we could prescribe how the tree looks at the level
below Service, but not at higher levels. Or we could say that all the
subsidiary classes should be somewhere below Service, but not say
exactly where. I think anyway we will end up with something a bit
strange, because in the schema the Resource and Share classes are not
directly children of Service, but are related to both Endpoint and
Manager, which obviously doesn't fit a tree structure. Also we have to
cope with the possibility that some objects are not published at all -
if your tree goes Service -> Manager -> Resource and the Manager is not
published, what happens?

  The other side is whether we say that clients should always construct
queries using IDs. To me that seems attractive; I don't think there is
much performance penalty if the IDs are indexed, and it would even mean
that you could use multiple technologies, e.g. query some things from
LDAP and others from XML.

Stephen
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.