[glue-wg] Enumerations for DPM and related InterfaceNames was: Re: New Endpoint and Service types

[Maria Alandes Pradillo]

Dear all,

> In any case, there's a meeting of the storage providers organised by Maria to
> discuss this kind of thing in a couple of weeks
> (https://indico.cern.ch/event/311528/), so we should wait to see what comes
> out of that.

Just to clarify that this is a first meeting where we will try to identify priorities and organise future regular meetings to discuss Information System issues that are common to the different Storage Systems. I´m not sure there will be time for a specific discussion next week, but we will for sure include this type of things on the list of priorities.

By the way, if you have a particular thing on which you need input from this meeting, please, formulate it in a more precise way since I´m a bit lost with all the mails exchanged so far. Are we talking here about capabilities, interface names, ...? It would be good to have a request from the GLUE WG that I can bring to our meeting.
 
> No. For established names that have been in use for a long time I think changing
> them would be a very bad idea, it gains nothing and would be disruptive for a
> long time. Past experience with trying to rename things is that it's nearly
> impossible to remove all traces of the old name, so I would say that it should
> only be considered where there's an overriding reason. (Also note that the GOC
> DB has decided not to bring its names in line for the same reason.)

Yes, please, take into account what it is already in use. We can´t ignore that completely, we should be pragmatic as well or nobody will make use of this information. For instance, I don´t know how many people know what 'org.ogf.gfd-129' is, but most people know what SRM is.

Regards,
Maria

 
> > My suggestion for these two InterfaceNames would be:
> >
> >   org.ogf.glue.dpm.webdav
> >   org.ogf.glue.dpm.xrootd
> 
> No, that would be crazy - these are *standard* protocols, they are not in any
> way specific to DPM, so they need to have universal names.
> 
> > How they can be used in discovery I already said in several emails.
> > InterfaceName should NOT be used to indentify the protocol or the
> > cababilities. For that there is existing attributes.
> 
> This is nonsense - InterfaceName is precisely the agreed attribute to identify the
> protocol.
> 
> Stephen
> --
> Scanned by iCritical.