[SAGA-RG] Service Discovery spec updated at last ...

[Steve Fisher]

As I seem to be in a minority of one wanting to call the access to the
file package a file service rather than a directory service I guess I
have to back down - but also bear in mind that LDAP or M'Softs active
directory are considered to be directory services - whereas I presume
that the SAGA directory service is a directory of files??

Steve

2008/12/17 Andre Merzky <andremerzky at gmail.com>:
> Quoting [Steve Fisher] (Dec 17 2008):
>>
>> 2008/12/17 Sylvain Reynaud <Sylvain.Reynaud at in2p3.fr>:
>> > Hi Steve and Andre,
>> >
>> > I am the reviewer who criticised having different "service type names" for
>> > file and for directory (and also for logical file/logical directory).
>> >
>> > I agree with Andre's suggestion of limiting this to dir (and also to logical
>> > dir I guess ?), because users use discovery services to discover the base
>> > directory they can access, while they use logical file catalogs to find
>> > files. Moreover, dir can be seen as a kind of implicit service with its
>> > open() and openDir() methods.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Sylvain
>>
>> Yes but I think it is more fundamentally a file service - the
>> directory is just one way of organising a bunch of files. The package
>> is also the file package rather than the directory package.
>
> Sure, valid point of view, I agree.
>
> But naming it 'dir' makes clear that the returned URL's are
> usable to create a saga::file::directory instance - and that
> is what this table is about, I though.
>
> Best, Andre.
>
>
>
>> Steve
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > Andre Merzky a écrit :
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>>
>> >>> I don't agree with this - it used to be your way round and it was
>> >>> criticised by one of our reviewers. You don't generally want to access
>> >>> directories and files by different services unless the underlying
>> >>> system used a  universal naming schema such as AFS.   However,
>> >>> checking the main spec again, I see you have no way of controlling
>> >>> which file/directory service you use - it is under the control of the
>> >>> implementation.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Well, the service is (explicitely or implicitely) specified
>> >> by the URL you use to open the file/dir instance, like
>> >> 'ftp://ftp.redhat.com/' points to a very specific ftp
>> >> server/service.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> So at least file, directory, logical-file and
>> >>> logical-directory should be removed from this table until
>> >>> such time as they provide a means of selecting the service
>> >>> to use.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Would it be ok for you if we remove 'file' then, and limit
>> >> to 'dir'?  Usually, one would like to discover services for
>> >> whole file systems, not for individual files, I presume?
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Nothing is ever easy.
>