[glue-wg] New types

[JP Navarro]

Sorry for the delayed response, but I agree that InterfaceName should not have a version if we have a separate version field.
 
On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se> wrote:

> On 2013-07-22 19:15, stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk wrote:>> Usually I would
> say not - we have the InterfaceVersion for that. For
>>> example SRM v1 and v2 are incompatible, but both have a Name of SRM. I
>>> think they should only have different names if they're really
>>> fundamentally different.
>> 
>> Also, think about future compatibility as well as the past - even if
> gram 5 is totally different to any previous gram, could there be a gram
> 6 which is backward-compatible? If so you'd have to keep calling it
> gram5 which wouldn't be very elegant ...
>> 
>> Stephen
>> 
> 
> I think is no point to force compatibility concepts in the schema. This
> will always be questionable. If we wanted to do that, there should have
> been dedicated fields representing compatibility.
> 
> I think we should foster simplicity and intuition.
> 
> If 5 is software/protocol/package version, it SHOULD NOT be in the
> InterfaceName, in my opinion.
> 
> Cheers,
> Florido
> -- 
> ==================================================
> Florido Paganelli
>   ARC Middleware Developer - EMI Project
>   System Administrator
> Lund University
> Department of Physics
> Division of Particle Physics
> BOX118
> 221 00 Lund
> Office Tel: 046-2220272
> Email: florido.paganelli at REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se
> Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli
> ==================================================
> _______________________________________________
> glue-wg mailing list
> glue-wg at ogf.org
> https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg