Hi Roman; Here are some additional comments to back up what we discussed on the call: On 9/30/10 8:45 AM, Roman Łapacz wrote:
Hi Jason, Aaron and others,
I attached mapping text file and MS Word doc with small updates (just to have them together in one email).
W dniu 2010-05-27 21:08, Jason Zurawski pisze:
Hi Roman/All;
Some comments on the proposal:
"Wrong structure of a request":
Like Aaron, I think I am having a hard time with some of these as being a purely 'structural' issue. For instance 'error.ls.data_trigger' - I would assert there is some context to be known about the content of the rest of the message before calling this structural issue (for instance if there was a data/metadata pair already).
If there is such data/metadata pair in a message than I wouldn't expect to get error.ls.data_trigger. An example of xml message would help to analyse such case.
So the example I had in mind was something like this: <message> <metadata id="m1"> <!-- ... something ... --> </metadat> <data id="d1" metadataIdRef="m1" /> <metadata id="m2"> <!-- ... something ... --> </metadat> <!-- no trigger for m2, and m2 is not related to m1 or d1 --> </message> In this case m1 and d1 could be acted on, and m2 could not (it would get the error.ls_data_trigger response). The pSPS would return the results for the first metadata/data pair and an error for the second in the same message. My objection is related to the proposed "http://perfsonar.net/status/clienterror/wrong_message_structure/" eventType. In this case the message structure is syntactically correct, the semantics are just wrong in one instance.
I think most of these are right, but we should be careful with the context before calling all of them a pure xml structure violation.
I still have the problem how much context should be included in the code (mainly datum element contains a description).
I forget what the outcome of the early discussion was (I am sure someone can correct me), but I believe that the description that will be returned in the datum does not need to be a 'standard' message. The eventType code and instructions guiding its use (e.g. 'use this this code for errors that are related to ...') are the only thing we should make standard. If someone wants to send back a datum that contains more than what the standard definition allows (e.g. a stack trace perhaps, or error logs) this seems fine to me.
"EventType in a request is not supported":
This also seems more context sensitive to me.
"Request is not supported":
I think 'message type unsupported' is different than 'no message type specified'
It just says ther's a problem with message type. Can we assume that if there's no message type then default type is considered (default type may be unspecified).
I dont think we should be assuming a default message type, because what would be the default? Services like the LS use different messages than the MAs and MPs. I would still favor having both 'type unsupported' and 'no type specified'.
"Elements of a request are not supported"
I think we may need to be a bit more clear in the message. Instead of 'wrong XXX' we may want to say 'unexpected XXX element' or something similar. This will clear up of the content is wrong or the element is wrong.
Doesn't message_element_not_supported match here?
Good question. I guess I can see this happening in one of two ways:
1) the element is unexpected semantically, but still schematically
legal. For example:
ns1:metadata
Roman
Thanks;
-jason
On 5/27/10 10:56 AM, romradz@man.poznan.pl wrote:
Hi Aron,
On Thu, 27 May 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
One minor thing. I'd move the "No message type specified" to the "wrong_message_structure" since the request is missing a required element. I'm curious what the "message_element_not_supported" event type is for. From the error messages listed, It wasn't obvious to me why the service threw them.
for example, if an element located in a request is not recognized (or the content of xml tag is wrong, eg. ip address)
Roman
Cheers, Aaron
On May 27, 2010, at 10:32 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi,
I've started preparing the mappings. So far I've focused only on RRD MA, PSPS commons and PSPS LS. This is just the beginning for the discussion (to check if this is a good direction for all interested).
Cheers, Roman