Sorry for double posting, I sent only to Stephen by mistake. On 2013-07-22 19:05, stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
Florido Paganelli [mailto:florido.paganelli@hep.lu.se] said:
but nevertheless we have to publish something, it's a mandatory attribute.
please let's not do this.
We have already done it (five years ago), the schema is what it is. There is no point in discussing this, and I don't intend to waste my time on doing so.
Stephen
Correct me if I am wrong, but the concept of Service came later in Glue1. You did that for Glue1 5 years ago. I think is bad choice. It's not a waste of time and I feel a bit offended by such comment. It's actually a useless duplication of information to have both Service and Endpoint reporting the same string as ServiceType and IntefaceName, unless these services are completely decoupled and independent. We should *really* think what we want to represent with these concepts. I expressed my views in the previous email. Just to remind text in the GFD147: "The Service class enables unique identification of instances of these concepts [Endpoints and the other entities] participating in the provision of some *unified* capability." I don't know the globus technology so well, but I have the feeling these Endpoint provide some *unified* capability and should be tied together by a single Service. I am a newbie, please give me a description of these services and we'll discuss. The strings alone have no meaning to me. Regards, Florido -- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - EMI Project System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ==================================================