You do not need to publish all possible paths but only the "relevant"ones. And I agree with Laurence. Flavia Laurence Field wrote:
Hi Stephen,
If I've understood what you're saying I don't think the namespace ACLs should be in GLUE at all, the granularity is too fine - for example the ACLs could be different for every directory in the tree. In theory we are always told that paths don't matter for SRM, so the client should just negotiate with the server once it finds a space it can use. For VOs (or sites) which insist on having a fixed path mapping I think they need to ensure that the ACLs are set appropriately without needing to have them published explicitly.
This is what I was trying to express the other day when I said that we need something like the LFC. Where as the LFC maps to logical names to SURLs, is this notmapping namespaces (directories) to physical spaces (or is it logical space?). I agree that this might not belong in the information system on the other hand this doesn't necessarily mean that it should not be in the information model.
Laurence _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg