Hi Paul, everyone, Thanks for the comments regarding the new service types; I've merged all pulls on the glue2 list except for the 'com.aws.s3' type which I'll leave as a pull request for now as I'm not sure whether this type should be added or not as per comments below. Note, this was already added to GOCDB: https://ggus.eu/?mode=ticket_info&ticket_id=123503 David -----Original Message----- From: glue-wg [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Millar Sent: 13 December 2016 09:42 To: glue-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [glue-wg] new service type requests Hi David, On 12/12/16 16:02, david.meredith@stfc.ac.uk wrote:
- "org.onedata.onezone" - Onezone is a Onedata component responsible for connecting multiple storage providers with installed Oneprovider component into federations of storage providers
This seems good.
- "com.aws.s3" - S3 is a storage API
I'm wondering whether this would be better as an InterfaceName_t. S3 is a network protocol that different implementations support. In principal, an implementation could support multiple object store protocols (e.g., CDMI, S3, Swift, ..). For example, there are S3 gateways that use a Swift object-store; such a service could expose a Swift and S3 endpoints. To my mind, a Service with service_t of com.aws.s3 would indicate Amazon's S3 service, or someone deploying the software Amazon is using.
- "com.ceph.object-storage" - Object store, see http://ceph.com
In contrast to S3, the Ceph protocol is tightly under Ceph's (now RedHat's) control, with applications achieving compatibility through the use of libradios. Therefore, this as a service_t makes perfect sense. HTH, Paul. _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg