-----Original Message----- From: glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org [mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Burke, S (Stephen) Sent: Freitag, 18. April 2008 02:12 To: Maarten Litmaath; Sergio Andreozzi Cc: glue-wg@ogf.org Subject: Re: [glue-wg] Some doubts
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Maarten Litmaath said: I suppose it would be OK (just a few foreign keys in the Share),
It wouldn't be a big change in the schema, but it would be quite a big change in the clients because they would have a more complicated query, and would potentially have to know which Share they were going to use before they could select an SE, which could be inconvenient. In fact in general it's impossible - you can't reliably reverse-engineer a SURL to know which Share it belongs to, so given a SURL you couldn't tell if you could read it with a given protocol or not.
Stephen
Coming back to what Maarten said: Is this CNAF-LHCB issue a use case which appears also on other sites? I tend to agree here with Maarten and point to the (client-)software which should take care of this. In fact, this is an agreement between the site and the vo which the model currently can't consider- except in a otherInfo field. So, lets find out whether we have to model this anyway. If so, we'll see then how we could do it. Felix