The initial drafts for the LDAP and SQL renderings are now available. The documents have been uploaded to the Grid Forge document repository. An updated Glue specification has also been uploaded which contains some changes that were made during the rendering process. The concrete renderings can be found in the subversion repository. SQL http://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/glue/SQL/ LDAP http://forge.ogf.org/svn/repos/glue/LDAP2/ I will provisionally suggest that we should have a phone conference on Wednesday 6th of May at 15:00 to discus these initial drafts. Regards, Laurence and David
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Laurence Field said: I will provisionally suggest that we should have a phone conference on Wednesday 6th of May at 15:00 to discus these initial drafts.
That clashes with a regular meeting for me, which runs from about 14.30 to 16.00 CERN time. I have another consideration to raise, concerning the question of whether the LDAP schema should contain objectclass definitions for the abstract classes. I think if we don't do that it makes life quite a lot harder for anyone trying to prototype an extension to the schema, at least if they want to do it with LDAP. For example, say that you wanted to create a new specialised version of Share to describe FTS channels (which may well be a real use case, currently it's done rather clumsily with GlueService and GlueServiceData). If there is no Share objectclass you have to do all the work of defining and deploying a new FTSShare class in the schema before you can test anything. By contrast, if the schema already contains a Share objectclass then you could publish a prototype object using Extension to carry the new attributes, try it out and modify if necessary, and only then define a new class in the schema once you know it will work. One of the selling points for glue 2 is supposed to be that it's easily extendable to cover services beyond computing and storage, so we shouldn't put unnecessary obstacles in the way of that. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
Is Tuesday 5th at 15:00 ok for everyone? Laurence Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Laurence Field said: I will provisionally suggest that we should have a phone conference on Wednesday 6th of May at 15:00 to discus these initial
drafts.
That clashes with a regular meeting for me, which runs from about 14.30 to 16.00 CERN time.
I have another consideration to raise, concerning the question of whether the LDAP schema should contain objectclass definitions for the abstract classes. I think if we don't do that it makes life quite a lot harder for anyone trying to prototype an extension to the schema, at least if they want to do it with LDAP. For example, say that you wanted to create a new specialised version of Share to describe FTS channels (which may well be a real use case, currently it's done rather clumsily with GlueService and GlueServiceData). If there is no Share objectclass you have to do all the work of defining and deploying a new FTSShare class in the schema before you can test anything. By contrast, if the schema already contains a Share objectclass then you could publish a prototype object using Extension to carry the new attributes, try it out and modify if necessary, and only then define a new class in the schema once you know it will work. One of the selling points for glue 2 is supposed to be that it's easily extendable to cover services beyond computing and storage, so we shouldn't put unnecessary obstacles in the way of that.
Stephen
Ok with me. On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 10:11 AM, Laurence Field <Laurence.Field@cern.ch>wrote:
Is Tuesday 5th at 15:00 ok for everyone?
Laurence
Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Laurence Field said: I will provisionally suggest that we should have a phone conference on Wednesday 6th of May at 15:00 to discus these initial
drafts.
That clashes with a regular meeting for me, which runs from about 14.30 to 16.00 CERN time.
I have another consideration to raise, concerning the question of whether the LDAP schema should contain objectclass definitions for the abstract classes. I think if we don't do that it makes life quite a lot harder for anyone trying to prototype an extension to the schema, at least if they want to do it with LDAP. For example, say that you wanted to create a new specialised version of Share to describe FTS channels (which may well be a real use case, currently it's done rather clumsily with GlueService and GlueServiceData). If there is no Share objectclass you have to do all the work of defining and deploying a new FTSShare class in the schema before you can test anything. By contrast, if the schema already contains a Share objectclass then you could publish a prototype object using Extension to carry the new attributes, try it out and modify if necessary, and only then define a new class in the schema once you know it will work. One of the selling points for glue 2 is supposed to be that it's easily extendable to cover services beyond computing and storage, so we shouldn't put unnecessary obstacles in the way of that.
Stephen
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
-- David Horat Software Engineer – IT/GD – Grid Deployment Group CERN – European Organization for Nuclear Research » Where the web was born Address: 1211 Geneva - Switzerland, Office: 28/R-003 Phone +41 22 76 77996 Professional Web: http://cern.ch/horat Personal Web: http://davidhorat.com/ Profile: http://linkedin.com/in/davidhorat
Laurence Field [mailto:Laurence.Field@cern.ch] said:
Is Tuesday 5th at 15:00 ok for everyone?
I'm intending to be on leave on Tuesday (Monday is a public holiday here). If there's really no other possible time then I can do it, but I'd prefer not. For next week I'm completely free on Friday, and on Thursday excepting 11-12 CERN time. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:
Is Tuesday 5th at 15:00 ok for everyone?
Not OK for me either.
I'm intending to be on leave on Tuesday (Monday is a public holiday here). If there's really no other possible time then I can do it, but I'd prefer not. For next week I'm completely free on Friday, and on Thursday excepting 11-12 CERN time.
That also is compatible with my schedule.
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Maarten.Litmaath@cern.ch said:
It asks for user and password...
http://forge.ogf.org/sf/sfmain/do/createUser Rather a nuisance if you only want to read it ... Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
It is your user name password for grid forge. Maarten.Litmaath@cern.ch wrote:
Hi Laurence,
It asks for user and password...
Yep! It works for me. Flavia Laurence Field wrote:
It is your user name password for grid forge.
Maarten.Litmaath@cern.ch wrote:
Hi Laurence,
It asks for user and password...
_______________________________________________ glue-wg mailing list glue-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/glue-wg
hi Laurence, David, Laurence Field wrote:
The concrete renderings can be found in the subversion repository.
I was wondering if there is a document which describes the LDAP rendering approach? The above svn directory contains mostly the schema. That is if you have updated the LDAP part of the "GLUE 2.0 – Reference Realizations to Concrete Data Models" document as well? http://forge.ogf.org/sf/docman/do/downloadDocument/projects.glue-wg/docman.r... furthermore, is there a test ldap server which publishes an example tree with according to the proposed draft? cheers, Balazs ps: i apologize if i happened to have overlooked the document and/or the ldap test tree previously announced on the list.
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Konya said: I was wondering if there is a document which describes the LDAP rendering approach? The above svn directory contains mostly the schema.
I think we still haven't decided on some of the key features of the approach - I hope that's what we'll be discussing today. Outstanding points are how to handle inheritance (e.g. whether to have LDAP objectclasses for all GLUE classes); how to contruct the LDAP tree (and where we put UserDomain), and whether we specify that clients should not be able to rely on the tree; how to implement foreign keys and which objects should carry them (and whether we should have any explicit "double hop" references); whether we prefix attribute and/or objectclass names with "Glue" or "Glue2"; whether we need any auxiliary objects which aren't in the main schema; and whether we define strings as case-sensitive and mandatory attributes as MUST. There's also a general question to clarify that unique IDs are globally unique, rather than unique per object class. Stephen -- Scanned by iCritical.
hi Stephen, Burke, S (Stephen) wrote:
glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org
[mailto:glue-wg-bounces@ogf.org] On Behalf Of Balazs Konya said: I was wondering if there is a document which describes the LDAP rendering approach? The above svn directory contains mostly the schema.
I think we still haven't decided on some of the key features of the approach - I hope that's what we'll be discussing today.
agree. this is how i look at the status of the (ldap) rendering myself. meanwhile browsing the wiki and the gridforge document directory i found this draft document uploaded by Laurence: GLUE v. 2.0 – Reference Realization to LDAP Schema http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/go/doc15526?nav=1 somehow i missed the announcement of the draft document. bye, Balazs Konya
participants (7)
-
Balazs Konya -
Burke, S (Stephen) -
David Horat -
Flavia Donno -
Laurence Field -
Maarten Litmaath -
Maarten.Litmaath＠cern.ch