glue-wg [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Jensen,
Jens (STFC,RAL,SC) said: One thing I did not see in this document - but had expected? - was to address Paul's suggestions from November last year. See attached.
We didn't discuss this, but my comments would be: P1: seems uncontroversial. P2: The semantics for multiple paths would need to be clear - in the past it was used as a default path on which to write files, if you have more than one it wouldn't be obvious. A more backward compatible approach would be to add a new multivalued attribute for additional paths, then it's clear that the existing one should be the default. P3: The reason for having a separate Capacity object was that there are potentially many different semantics for what the attributes can refer to. Putting the attributes back in the main object would need both a clear definition for which precise semantics are intended, and a case for why those particular semantics are universally the most important ones. Personally I don't think it's a useful idea given that the information is already available from the existing object. P4: Seems like a strange idea to me. StorageShareCapacity is logically a part of the StorageShare object, hence the name and indeed the proposal in P3. If a similar object is wanted for Datastore then it should be a new object with a new name. In principle it's possible that one Share could be spread across multiple Datastores so there's no simple relation between them. Stephen