Sorry for the delayed response, but I agree that InterfaceName should not have a version if we have a separate version field. On Jul 23, 2013, at 3:16 AM, Florido Paganelli <florido.paganelli@hep.lu.se> wrote:
On 2013-07-22 19:15, stephen.burke@stfc.ac.uk wrote:>> Usually I would say not - we have the InterfaceVersion for that. For
example SRM v1 and v2 are incompatible, but both have a Name of SRM. I think they should only have different names if they're really fundamentally different.
Also, think about future compatibility as well as the past - even if gram 5 is totally different to any previous gram, could there be a gram 6 which is backward-compatible? If so you'd have to keep calling it gram5 which wouldn't be very elegant ...
Stephen
I think is no point to force compatibility concepts in the schema. This will always be questionable. If we wanted to do that, there should have been dedicated fields representing compatibility.
I think we should foster simplicity and intuition.
If 5 is software/protocol/package version, it SHOULD NOT be in the InterfaceName, in my opinion.
Cheers, Florido -- ================================================== Florido Paganelli ARC Middleware Developer - EMI Project System Administrator Lund University Department of Physics Division of Particle Physics BOX118 221 00 Lund Office Tel: 046-2220272 Email: florido.paganelli@REMOVE_THIShep.lu.se Homepage: http://www.hep.lu.se/staff/paganelli ================================================== _______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org https://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg