[glue-wg] GLUE WG teleconference, Tuesday, June 3, 2014

[stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk]

Navarro, John-Paul F. [mailto:navarro at mcs.anl.gov] said:
> Our next GLUE WG teleconference will be:
> : Tuesday, June 3, 2014
> : 15:30-17:00 Central Europe, 8:30-10:00 AM US Central

Note that I'll have to leave fairly promptly at the end.

> We will try a new teleconference and screen sharing tool:
> : Web: https://meet.illinois.edu/herrio/V57YV10Q

It doesn't seem to work for me, I just get a blank browser window.

> 1) LDAP rendering (JP/Shiraz: 10 minutes)
> Discuss status, voting, and release for public comment.

I asked to be able to read the final version after edits before it goes to public comment, and so far I don't think that has been circulated.

> > Action 1: Everyone review Florido's specification edits, 
> Shiraz/JP approve and accept changes

I thought we did that last time?

> > Action 2: Florido will share schema diffs in ~1 week, 
> everyone please review and comment

Looking at Florido's last mail, I have a problem with this comment:

"1) ABSTRACT classes to be in sync with XML realisation:
Objects like Entity, Resource, Share, Policy have been declared ABSTRACT
to be in sync with the XML schema. This means these cannot be
instantiated as is; only their specialization can (i.e. Computing-
Storage- or others like Benchmark etc.) are objects that can be published."

That seems to contradict a statement in the last version of the rendering document that I've seen:

*	All classes deriving from Entity will be of type "Structural".

It was a deliberate decision for LDAP that at least Resource, Share, Manager and Activity should be instantiable to allow prototyping new classes, given the difficulty in craeting and deploying a new version of the schema. Previous versions of the document had some explicit text to explain that, and I don't think we ever discussed a change to that. For those classes there is no fundamental reason that they should not be instantiable, it's just that the base classes have no attributes and hence aren't useful in themselves, but you can still usefully add Extensions to prototype new attributes. By contrast there isn't likely to be any use in having Policy and Domain be instantiable, but equally it would do no particular harm.

Stephen
-- 
Scanned by iCritical.