Hi Andre, Andre Merzky wrote:
Hi,
Quoting [Donal K. Fellows] (Jun 12 2006):
Marvin Theimer wrote:
If we narrow the definitions of mountpoint and mountsource enough and precisely describe their semantics then we might arrive at something that could be fairly widely used. I???m thinking of things like saying that you can???t navigate ???out??? of a file system via ???cd ..???, etc. This is definitely something to explore. Change "can't" to "shouldn't" and I'd agree. I don't regard the mount stuff as being a way of describing security enforcement points. Systems can do it that way, but at least some won't.
In fact, I'd be happy enough with the profile stating that paths in JSDL documents should not contain either the "." or the ".." elements at all. That's a fairly strong requirement and guarantees that the job won't fail on systems where your style of semantics are enforced.
The GFS group (naturally) did some analysis on file systems, directory navigation etc, and on related issues in Grids. It might be useful input, and prevent you from re-doing that job.
You might want to browse their meeting material section on forge (https://forge.gridforum.org/sf/docman/do/listDocuments/projects.gfs-wg/docma...) for some overview material.
[This link is broken - seem to be a link from the old gridforge!] Good point. OTOH, it's not only GFS that is or should be involved. In fact, I see the following group's involvement: - GFS - WS-Naming - JSDL - DMI - HPC - GSM I would like to know if there are enough resources available to get all these groups together in an inter-group F2F to wrangle this issue? Cheers, Michel -- Michel <dot> Drescher <at> uk <dot> fujitsu <dot> com Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe +44 20 8606 4834