[glue-wg] Progress on LDAP schema

[Maria Alandes Pradillo]

Dear all,

Sorry for the late feedback on this. I finally managed to test the new LDAP schema version in the BDII.

In principle I think it´s OK. I have compared for instance the number of DNs published with the old schema version and the new one, and there is a different of 100 DNs, which for the BDII could be in principle OK since there are many things getting published and deleted, it´s very dynamic. The number of sites is the same and also the number of endpoints is roughly the same.

I don´t know what else I could test. Any ideas?

Regards,
Maria

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Maria Alandes Pradillo
> Sent: 14 May 2014 11:53
> To: Florido Paganelli; glue-wg at ogf.org; Paul Millar
> Subject: RE: Progress on LDAP schema
> 
> Hi Florido,
> 
> Quite busy with other priorities in the next two weeks. I hope I can try this in
> June. I´ll keep you informed.
> 
> Sorry,
> Maria
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Florido Paganelli [mailto:florido.paganelli at hep.lu.se]
> > Sent: 08 May 2014 17:58
> > To: Maria Alandes Pradillo; glue-wg at ogf.org; Paul Millar
> > Subject: Progress on LDAP schema
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Yesterday I tested the changes mandated by the new version of the LDAP
> > document in a test environment and I didn't see any issue.
> > I didn't see any bad error in slapd logs, and the objects that were
> > affected by changes are published as expected.
> >
> > I attach the latest schema and kindly ask Maria and Paul to test the
> > impact on their products:
> >   GLUE20.schema.20140508
> >
> > A list of diffs between the current distributed version of the schema
> > (2.0rc5) against the new version (2.0rc6) that is included in this email:
> >   distro2.0rc5_diff_2.0rc6.changes
> >
> > I suggest you check them with some nice editor that colors things up
> > so you can easily spot differences.
> >
> > I pushed the source schemas in my git-hub area temporarily, if we're
> > fine with that I will push it to the official repos:
> >
> >    https://github.com/floridop/LDAPWIP
> >
> >
> > I would say that we should put recommendations in the release notes
> > that I added in the README files on git-hub. I didn't do it yet, but
> > the issues I can imagine we should add are the following:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 2) Boolean type changed to DirectoryString This means that if the
> > boolean values that are mandatory in the schema are not defined, the
> > information providers MUST publish them and MUST present the value
> > "undefinedvalue";
> > GFD.147 Appendix B.17.
> > These are:
> > ExecutionEnvironment.ConnectivityIn
> > ExecutionEnvironment.ConnectivityOut
> >
> >
> > If you spot any problem, let me know.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Florido
> > --
> > ==================================================
> >  Florido Paganelli
> >    ARC Middleware Developer - NorduGrid Collaboration
> >    System Administrator
> >  Lund University
> >  Department of Physics
> >  Division of Particle Physics
> >  BOX118
> >  221 00 Lund
> >  Office Location: Fysikum, Hus B, Rum B313  Office Tel: 046-2220272
> >  Email: florido.paganelli at REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se
> >  Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli
> > ==================================================