- glue-wg - lists.ogf.org

GLUE 2.0 - draft 36
by Sergio Andreozzi 14 Apr '08

14 Apr '08

Dear all, draft 36 is online: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/projects.glue-wg/docman.root.drafts here a summary set of changes: * fixed storage part according to today telecon * changed policy modeling in order to allow to have multiple policy instances associated to the same pair; (in UML I'm not using anymore the association class) * removed management policy since it was mainly conceptual and not meant to be instantiated... now we have aggregation between adminDomain and Service Cheers, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 0

telecon reminder
by Felix Nikolaus Ehm 14 Apr '08

14 Apr '08

Dear all, this is a reminder for our today telecom on Storage (2 PM CEST ): http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/PhoneMeet ing20080414_1 Cheers, Felix --- Felix Ehm IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 CERN, Switzerland -----------------------------------------

4 3

Publishing annotations
by Burke, S (Stephen) 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Hi, I don't know if this has been discussed already, or is considered in scope, but I was just thinking about whether you could have a way for a third party to publish "annotations" to glue schema objects. The specific thing I was considering was the EGEE "freedom of choice" tool, which currently edits the published data by removing AcessControlBaseRule attributes for CEs which are failing defined tests. That works, but it isn't entirely satisfactory in that it isn't transparent, you can't tell that the published data has been modified or who did it (or indeed why). On the face of it it would be better to do this kind of thing explicitly, so you could see where the modifications were coming from and choose whether to use them or not. Another thing that occurs to me on similar lines is the downtime information. I see that this is now embedded in the Endpoints, but for EGEE that wouldn't be usable because our downtime information is in a central database (GOC DB), so if we wanted to publish it it would again need to be done by modifying/annotating published information from a different place. This could maybe also feed into our CESEBind discussion, e.g. rather than the CE and SE publishing disconnected pieces of information the CE could in effect add/modify things published by the SE, i.e. we could separate the schema structure from the question of who publishes it. What do people think? Maybe it's too complicated to fit in at this stage, but it might be worth a bit of thought - at the abstract schema level it wouldn't necessarily mean huge changes. Just thinking about it quickly I suspect the problems would come at the implementation level, e.g. in LDAP the annotations would still be in a different part of the tree so it would take some extra effort in queries to find them. Stephen

3 5

telecon reminder
by Sergio Andreozzi 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Dear all, this is a reminder for our today telecom on Storage (11 AM CEST ): http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/PhoneMeeting… please, check the calling details just updated. Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 0

Re: [glue-wg] FW: Meeting up during WLCG workshop?
by Felix Nikolaus Ehm 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Dear all, I would like to suggest these times for meeting up at the WLCG workshop: * Monday 11:00-12:30 * Wednsday 14:00-16:00 * Thursday 13:00-15:00 * Thursday 14:00 -16:00 Friday (?) Please let me know your preferences. Thanks, Felix --- Felix Ehm IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 CERN, Switzerland ----------------------------------------- -----Original Message----- From: Flavia Donno Sent: Mittwoch, 9. April 2008 00:03 To: Felix Nikolaus Ehm Cc: Maarten Litmaath Subject: Re: FW: [glue-wg] Meeting up during WLCG workshop? That's a good idea. With Paul we setup another session on SRM for Wednesday 9:00-11:00am. Therefore, that slot is out. Anything else excluding Storage sessions and lesson learned should be fine with me. Flavia Felix Nikolaus Ehm wrote: > Hi Flavia, Maarten, > > Paul suggested to meet up for Glue during the WLCG workshop. Do you > have any preferences for the time schedule? > > Cheers, > Felix > > --- > Felix Ehm > IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 > CERN, Switzerland > ----------------------------------------- > -----Original Message----- > From: glue-wg-bounces(a)ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On > Behalf Of Burke, S (Stephen) > Sent: Dienstag, 8. April 2008 23:46 > To: Felix Nikolaus Ehm; Paul Millar; GLUE WG > Subject: Re: [glue-wg] Meeting up during WLCG workshop? > > Felix Nikolaus Ehm [mailto:Felix.Ehm@cern.ch] said: > >> Paul, thanks for suggesting this. I'm happy to take this meeting as a >> chance for f2f discussions. But the schedule seems to be quite full. >> I >> > > >> can only imagine to utilize the only non-working time (lunch/coffee >> breaks) to talk about the schema. But I'm not sure if you are in >> favour of this? >> > > There may be sessions that people are less interested in, but I guess > it may be hard to find a common time. Also things may not run right to > the end of their slot, e.g. on Wednesday. And of course there are the > evenings :) > > Stephen > _______________________________________________ > glue-wg mailing list > glue-wg(a)ogf.org > http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg >

5 6

update on XML Schema rendering
by Sergio Andreozzi 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Dear all, here you can find an update to the XML Schema rendering according to latest decisions (update for main entities and computing; storage not yet updated) http://glueman.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/glueman/tags/glue-xsd/draft-34/ - root element now is Domains - data types - BaseType attribute to query based on superclass - updated example for simple BES representation Cheers, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

2 1

sorry for no storage telcon booking
by Felix Nikolaus Ehm 11 Apr '08

11 Apr '08

Dear all@storage-discussion, I'm sorry for missing out booking the telcon at CERN yesterday in time. That was my fault. No excuses. The next 4 sessions however are booked. Cheers, Felix --- Felix Ehm IT-GD tel : +41 22 7674580 CERN, Switzerland -----------------------------------------

2 1

[artf6175] some ideas for wildcards for associations in XML schema
by Paul Millar 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

Hi all, Looking at artf6175 "Wildcards in association", here are some possible solutions for how to represent a one-to-all mapping. Option 1. treat "*" is reserved localID that has special meaning. <ExecutionEnvironment> <Assocations> <ApplicationEnvironmentLocalID>*</ApplicationEnvironmentLocalID> </Assocations> </ExecutionEnvironment> I've included this one mainly for completeness. Pros: simple to implement Cons: hard to enforce, requires parsing of strings, goes against LocalID being any string. Option 2. Define a wildcard element with name "Wildcard" (or "AllIDs", or similar) <ExecutionEnvironment> <Assocations> <ApplicationEnvironmentLocalID><AllIDs/></ApplicationEnvironmentLocalID> </Assocations> </ExecutionEnvironment> Info providers should specify either only <AllIDs/> or some LocalID_t (i.e., a string), but never both: "myID<allIDs/>" is not a valid value for ApplicationEnvironmentLocalID. Pros: Unlike 1, this protects the LocalID namespace (so "*" is a valid LocalID). Cons: we can't enforce this either-element-or-string with XSD validation (I think). Option 3. Add an extra layer (LocalID or LocalIDRef, of type LocalID_t === string) <ExecutionEnvironment> <Assocations> <ApplicationEnvironmentList> <LocalID>someID1</LocalID> <LocalID>someID2</LocalID> <LocalID>someID3</LocalID> </ApplicationEnvironmentList> </Assocations> </ExecutionEnvironment> <ExecutionEnvironment> <Assocations> <ApplicationEnvironmentList> <WildcardID/>  </ApplicationEnvironmentList> </Assocations> </ExecutionEnvironment> Pros: allows enforcement of either 1 of Wildcard or 1..* of LocalID through XML Schema. Like this, it may be useful elsewhere: define a generic type LocalIDList_t that is a complex type and has a choice of 1..* LocalIDs or precisely one WildcardID. ApplicationEnvironmentList is (or inherits from) LocalIDList_t. Other lists of localIDs could use (or inherit from) localIDList_t. Cons: has more elements 4. Add an <AllApplicationEnvironments/> element <ExecutionEnvironment> <Assocations> <ApplicationEnvironmentLocalID>someID</ApplicationEnvironment> </Assocations> </ExecutionEnvironment> <ExecutionEnvironment> <Assocations> <AllApplicationEnvironments/> </Assocations> </ExecutionEnvironment> Pros: reduced number of elements Cons: AllApplicationEnvironments is very specialised. I think I'm in favour of option 3, but what do other people think? Cheers, Paul.

1 0

[XML] some questions
by Paul Millar 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

Hi all, As I mentioned during the XML phone conference, I've a few questions about the current XML rendering. I don't think they're too important (not show-stoppers), but they might be worth raising. 1. In the Base type we define a Validity as an int 0..1, I suspect that this is really a boolean (which is a base-type). In XML-Schema, the boolean type can be either "true", "false", "0" or "1" (with true/false is the canonical form). So, if we switch this to a boolean, we would allow "true" and "false" as valid entries. If we don't want this, we can contract the boolean so it only accepts "0" or "1" (I think), but is a boolean none-the-less. Also, perhaps this attribute should be isValid (so something that maps more directly to a boolean), rather than Validity (which should take values like is-valid or is-not-valid). 2. XML nillable vs Validity XML Schema allows entries to be "nillable"; that is, the corresponding point in the XML tree can be empty, even if has required content. For example, AdminDomain has a required child element: ID. <Grid> <AdminDomain> <ID>CNAF</ID>  </AdminDomain> </Grid> If AdminDomain was nillable, the following <Grid> <AdminDomain/> </Grid> would still be valid (i.e., pass the XSD validation). The current XML Schema has nillable switched off for all elements. Do we want to express invalid objects by simply publishing empty objects? Does it make sense to publish an AdminDomain with validity=false and a ComputingService with validity=true ? I'm not particularly advocating this, but rather posing it as an interesting question. See also (a random Google find): http://www.stylusstudio.com/xmldev/200309/post20390.html 3. Adding "unknown" as a place-holder enumeration value for all enumeration types. Do we want to include an "unknown" (or similar) value for the enumerations? This would be to satisfy the two use-cases described in Appendix A. This is perhaps not an XML-specific question, though. Cheers, Paul.

2 1

minutes from today call
by Sergio Andreozzi 10 Apr '08

10 Apr '08

Dear all, please, find the minutes with summary open issues and actions from the today call http://forge.ogf.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/PhoneMeeting… Cheers, Sergio -- Sergio Andreozzi INFN-CNAF, Tel: +39 051 609 2860 Viale Berti Pichat, 6/2 Fax: +39 051 609 2746 40126 Bologna (Italy) Web: http://www.cnaf.infn.it/~andreozzi

1 0