glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Konya said: From the nordugrid experience we find the DIT very important. According to our view the LDAP rendering must come with a recommendation for DIT.
A recommendation would imply that people are allowed to do something different ... also it's possible that we make some things mandatory and others not, e.g. we could prescribe how the tree looks at the level below Service, but not at higher levels. Or we could say that all the subsidiary classes should be somewhere below Service, but not say exactly where. I think anyway we will end up with something a bit strange, because in the schema the Resource and Share classes are not directly children of Service, but are related to both Endpoint and Manager, which obviously doesn't fit a tree structure. Also we have to cope with the possibility that some objects are not published at all - if your tree goes Service -> Manager -> Resource and the Manager is not published, what happens? The other side is whether we say that clients should always construct queries using IDs. To me that seems attractive; I don't think there is much performance penalty if the IDs are indexed, and it would even mean that you could use multiple technologies, e.g. query some things from LDAP and others from XML. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.