Hi,
I don't think that we are very resilient to any changes, at this point, but we have to take a decision. By the way, is the lcg broker going to distinguish the new attribute value and not crash?

glitece:// seams appropriate to me.

Cheers
Gabriele

Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:

Hi,

I seem to have lost track of this ... we still need to say what the (pseudo-)URL should be for the glite CE. Something like glitece://host.name/blah-pbs? We need a scheme name which isn't going to clash with anything else, and offhand I can't think of anything better - the interface is actually condor-C but that might be needed for other things.

Stephen
From: glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Gabriele Garzoglio
Sent: 28 March 2007 17:03
To: Burke, S (Stephen)
Cc: glue-wg@ogf.org
Subject: Re: [glue-wg] FW: [bug #20804] GlueCEInfoContactString should be a real URL

Hi,
having a URL for each different syntax is probably a good approach.
Cheers
Gabriele

Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:
Gabriele Garzoglio [mailto:garzogli@fnal.gov] said:
  
I would like for the GlueCEInfoContactString to be the 
GRAM-URL for the resource.
    
For the LCG CE that's OK, but the glite CE doesn't have a gram interface
(apart from fork on the CE headnode). We can either invent a URL for
that or leave it unset. In the future it's possible that some glite CEs
will have gram as well, but at the moment it isn't supported.

Stephen
  