[glue-wg] New Endpoint and Service types

[Florido Paganelli]

Hi Maria,

On 2014-03-05 16:47, Maria Alandes Pradillo wrote:
> Hi Florido,
> 
>>> Maria Alandes Pradillo [mailto:Maria.Alandes.Pradillo at cern.ch]
>>> said:
>>>> On behalf of the DPM team, could you please also consider
>>>> adding:
>>> 
>>> I think these do need some more discussion ...
>>> 
>>>> - "DPM" to ServiceType
>> 
>> isn't it possible to assign an organization do DPM? I know nothing
>> about it.
>> 
>> org.<organizationname>.dpm?
> 
> Like for example org.cern.dpm? If this type of syntax is needed,
> please let me know and I will ask my DPM colleagues.
> 

if it's developed by cern, yes that would be perfect. This organization
name were a way to remember who to ask in case of future changes.


>>>> - "org.webdav" and "org.xrootd" to InterfaceName
>>> 
>>> xroot has already been discussed extensively and we made a
>>> decision - I think
>> the decision was to use "xroot" for the protocol name but we should
>> check.
>>> 
>>> For webdav I think the "org." prefix isn't adding much here -
>>> probably we
>> should just use "webdav" as it's a well-known protocol defined in
>> an RFC so there's no issue of a name clash, but there may be other
>> views. Anyway there are likely to be other interested parties -
>> dcache at least - who should express a view.
>>> 
>> 
>> I agree with Stephen, if there is no organization it doens't make
>> sense to have 'org.' there. If it's a simple standard webdav
>> interface, it's perfect to have only webdav there.
>> 
>> But I also wonder what is the type of such interfacenames -- it
>> seems to me that these two should be in Endpoint.Technology
>> instead. The name of the interface should be something like
>> org.<organizationname>.webdavenhanced if it's not just plain
>> webdav
>> 
>> If that is not enough then you should look into capabilities for
>> EMI-ES and craft proper ones, like:
>> 
>> data.transfer.xrootd data.transfer.webdav
> 
> I don´t have the answer to these questions since I´m not a Data
> Management expert. Is the WG normally following up this type of
> things with the relevant experts? Or how do you normally proceed to
> take a decision?
> 

We have no defined procedure as I never had the time to write it down.
This is just the way I think things should be wrt my understanding of
how GLUE2 should be used by consumers.
The WG usually discusses such matters on this mailing list.

Cheers,
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
==================================================