[glue-wg] Call for minor non-distruptive updates to GLUE 2.0

[stephen.burke at stfc.ac.uk]

Paul Millar [mailto:paul.millar at desy.de] said:
> It kinda depends whether or not you consider "EGI-1.0" a formatted piece
> of information; it could be an opaque identifier, like "NorduNET" in my
> examples.

It's only unformatted if you regarded each version of a profile as a completely new specification, and that's unlikely to be the case in general (cf discussions about GLUE 1/GLUE 2/GLUE 2.1).

> Yes, that could be a problem; but it could also be that XSEDE, EGI, OSG
> (three names chosen at random) could have sufficiently large overlap in
> their profiles that a service could publish information that is good for
> all three profiles.

Even if it were the case it could be quite difficult to be sure, and might change if any of them had a new version.

>  > You could perhaps have a ProfileExtension attribute ...
> 
> What semantics would that have?

As for the InterfaceExtension, it would apply to the case where one profile explicitly included/extended another. For example, potentially we could have that with clouds, i.e. there could be an EGI cloud profile as an extension to the existing one.

> Could GOCDB itself inject the information?

Not in the current architecture. The historical development for the BDII and GOC DB was completely different and the information models were also different, so they don't really interact at all. If we still had any middleware development we might well be trying to get them to converge, but as it stands I don't see anything happening.

> > In any case the situation with the cloud may be different - managing
> > downtimes for transient services via the GOC DB, which requires
> > static registration, may not be possible. On the other hand, do
> > transient services even have a concept of downtime?
>
> Who can say?

Salvatore, perhaps!

Stephen

-- 
Scanned by iCritical.