Paul Millar [mailto:paul.millar@desy.de] said:
There's a more general issue here: should GLUE reserve some part of the name-space? (This could be more of a "Gentleman's agreement" than a rigid partitioning.)
In fact we've gone the other way and decided that we won't have "Glue" in any names, the only scoping is the schema as a whole. Sergio or Laurence may remember the arguments better than me.
Fair enough. I guess EGEE, LCG or any group should feel free to publish additional information, provided it doesn't conflict with Glue information.
In theory yes, in practice it hasn't happened apart from Service, partly because LDAP schemas are so difficult to extend.
When there are changes, there must be timely dissemination of these changes within the developer community.
As I just pointed out in another mail, within EGEE/LCG that's done via savannah.
Hmm... I'm not sure if, with "code making invalid assumptions", you're referring to the info-providers or the underlying systems.
Neither, if I've understood your question! I'm referring to client code, e.g. lcg-utils or the WMS, that makes use of the GLUE attributes. For example, lcg-utils used to expect the type of SE (classic or SRM) to be encoded in the SEName - like many things that was a quick hack to solve a short-term problem which took several years to get rid of. Or there's the assumption that there would be only one GlueSA per VO, which was never formally true in the schema but used to be true in practice so it got hard-wired as an assumption - we're still trying to deal with that one.
Aye, but I believe GSSD is specifically storage and not specifically GLUE; so, although the should (IMHO) have a strong influence on EGEE's usage of GLUE for storage, they're not the forum that decides how EGEE should use GLUE.
Perhaps not in an ideal world, but it's the best we've got ... Stephen