Hi Warren, I do not understand why it should not work, even with XML and JSON. If the site does not publish cloud resources, nothing will change and GLUE 2.1 will be equal as GLUE 2.0. If the site does publish cloud resources, with or without grid ones, since they are contained into entities with a different entityes (object calsses in LDAP, I presume tags in XML), they should be ignored. If the current implmeentation does not, it would be in any case much easier to update it than to adapt it to a GLUE 3.0. Cheers, Salvatore. On 05/05/2014 15:29, Warren Smith wrote:
That would probably work for LDAP or SQL (aside from GLUE 2.0 clients not seeing any information about clouds). It may or may not work for XML with our XML Schema. I don't believe it would work for JSON with JSON schema (the validation would fail).
Warren
________________________________________ From: stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk [stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 8:20 AM To: Warren Smith; salvatore.pinto@egi.eu; glue-wg@ogf.org Subject: RE: [glue-wg] glue2 cloud examples
Warren Smith [mailto:wsmith@tacc.utexas.edu] said:
I wouldn't really call the proposed cloud extensions backward compatible either: Will a GLUE 2.0 client be able to understand these extensions? No. By backward-compatible I mean that changes don't break existing code, either publishers or clients. If new objects are introduced the answer is yes - publishers don't have to publish them, and clients won't query for them and hence won't be disturbed.
Stephen
-- Scanned by iCritical.
-- Salvatore Pinto Cloud Technologist, EGI.eu e-mail: salvatore.pinto@egi.eu skype: salvatore.pinto0 Science Park 140, Amsterdam, The Netherlands